Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FTC and Texas AG File Suit Against IFC Credit
In yet another round of lawsuits stemming from the NorVergence telecommunications fraud, the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General of Texas filed simultaneous complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and Harris County, TX, against Illinois-based commercial finance company IFC Credit for violating federal law by helping to finance the scheme and continuing to seek payment from defrauded NorVergence customers.
According to the FTC's complaint filed June 6, IFC Credit Corporation purchased NorVergence rental agreements valued at $21 million, with individual contracts ranging from $4439 to $160,672. The complaint alleges that despite making payments, no customers received telecommunications services from NorVergence for more than a short period of time, and many consumers received none. It further alleges that IFC continued to finance the fraudulent scheme by accepting new rental contracts, despite NorVergence's failure to provide the promised services and the resulting high rate of default among IFC customers. In addition, long after NorVergence entered bankruptcy in 2004, IFC continued to tell consumers they were obligated under the rental agreements because the payments are for the device, not for services.
Under the lawsuit, brought under the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices, the FTC charges IFC with misrepresenting that consumers have no defenses to payment on the NorVergence rental agreements; harming consumers by unfairly accepting and collecting on the rental agreements; and unfairly filing debt collection lawsuits in courts far from consumers' locations. The FTC is asking the court to order all rental agreements terminated and is seeking refunds for payments consumers made for services they never received. The FTC also is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop IFC from continuing any debt collection while the suit proceeds.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?