Here:
tribal payday lenders
Nathalie Martin and Joshua Schwartz on the Implications of Tribal Payday Lending
Nathalie Martin and Joshua Schwartz have posted their paper, “The Alliance between Payday Lenders and Tribes: Are Both Tribal Sovereignty and Consumer Protection at Risk?,” on SSRN. The paper appears in the Washington & Lee Law Review. Here is the abstract:
This article explores how tribal sovereign immunity is being used in the context of payday lending to avoid state law and explores the ramifications of this for both consumer-protection regulation and tribes. It discusses payday loans and tribal sovereignty generally, as well as tribal sovereign immunity, then discusses what might be done to address this consumer protection issue. More specifically, we discuss who in society has the power and resolve to dissolve this alliance, identifying tribes themselves, the Supreme Court, Congress, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as possibilities.
This is an important piece of scholarship from balanced scholars. Some tribal leaders and lawyers are thinking that payday lending is the new gaming for Indian country, but there seems to me that a certain amount of consent is missing in the way some payday lenders are behaving. I don’t think we saw the extent of bad faith in the early days of Indian gaming that we are sometimes seeing now with some of these tribal payday lenders. It’s important for Indian country as a whole to come together on this question as soon a possible, or else Congress will.
Business Week Article on Tribal Payday Lenders
Robinson v. Tucker — RICO Class Action against Miami Tribe/Santee Sioux Payday Lending Business Partners
Here:
Federal Trade Commission Amended Complaint against Martin Webb’s Payday Financial Entity
Here is the complaint in FTC v. Payday Financial LLC (D. S.D.).
Other docs are here at the FTC site:
March 7, 2012
- Amended Complaint for Civil Penalties, Injunctive, and Other Equitable Relief
- News Release
September 12, 2011
- Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief
- Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Equitable Relief and an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue
- Plaintiff’s Exhibits In Support of Its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Volume 1 – PX01 through PX06)
- Plaintiff’s Exhibits In Support of Its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Volume 2 – PX07)
- Stipulated Preliminary Injunction
- News Release
FTC & US Financial Protection Bureau Has Tribal Payday Lenders in Their Sights
West Virginia Court Rules Martin Webb’s “Lakota Cash” Must Comply with State AG Subpoenas
Here is the news coverage, via Pechanga. We’ll post the court opinion when the W.Va. posts the press release online (hopefully soon).
Our previous posting on Illinois’ suit against “Lakota Cash” is here.
More Bad Press on Tribal Payday Lending Companies
Two points on payday lenders that should be apparent by now:
1. Read the Nebraska Supreme Court decision in StoreVisions v. Omaha Tribe, where the court held that tribal immunity was waived where the tribal chair and vice chair signed a waiver document (without constitutional authority to waive immunity) in the presence of other council members, and which the court held the presence of the other council members was sufficient to waive tribal immunity. Courts will find a way to find a waiver.
2. Read David Fredericks’ rendition (pp.217-18) of the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in C&L Enters. v. Citizen Potawatomi, where the Court directly asked the CPN attorney about the way tribes view immunity, and the deeply off-put reaction from the Court by the answer. In fact, here is that exchange (well worth the read):
Turtle Talk 