In the CFPB case against Consumer Advocacy Center, Premier Student Loan Center, and others, Sarah Kim has settled.
Here is the backstory from court documents:
“Plaintiffs the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau), the State of Minnesota, the State of North Carolina, and the People of the State of California (collectively, Plaintiffs) commenced this civil action on October 21, 2019, filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2020, a second amended complaint on April 20, 2021, and a third amended complaint (Third Amended Complaint) on August 5, 2021, to obtain permanent injunctive relief, damages, rescission or reformation of contracts, refunds of moneys paid, restitution, disgorgement or compensation for unjust enrichment, civil money penalties, and other monetary and equitable relief from: (1) Defendants Consumer Advocacy Center Inc., d/b/a Premier Student Loan Center; True Count Staffing Inc., d/b/a SL Account Management; Prime Consulting LLC, d/b/a Financial Preparation Services; TAS 2019 LLC, d/b/a Trusted Account Services; Horizon Consultants LLC; First Priority LLC, d/b/a Priority Account Management; Albert Kim; Kaine Wen in his individual capacity and as trustee of the Kaine Wen 2017 Trust; and Tuong Nguyen; and (2) Relief Defendants Infinite Management Corp., f/k/a Infinite Management Solutions Inc.; Hold the Door, Corp.; TN Accounting Inc.; Mice and Men LLC; Sarah Kim; 1st Generation Holdings, LLC; Anan Enterprise, Inc.; and Judy Dai in her individual capacity and as trustee of the Judy Dai 2017 Trust.
The Third Amended Complaint alleges violations of sections 1031(a) and 1036(a) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a); the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c)(2), based on alleged violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310; the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68-.694; the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.43-.48; the North Carolina Debt Adjusting Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-423 et seq.; the North Carolina Telephonic Seller Registration Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-260 et seq.; the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. in connection with the above-named defendants’ marketing and sale of debt-relief services. The Third Amended Complaint also includes claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308, and the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, Cal Civ. Code §§ 3439-3439.14.
The (1) Plaintiffs and (2) Relief Defendant Sarah Kim (Settling Relief Defendant) stipulate to the entry of a stipulated final judgment and order, lodged concurrently with this stipulation, with the following terms and provisions:”
Sarah Kim has agreed to give up:
- Bentley Continental 2016,VIN ending in 2027;
- 2016 Mercedes-Benz G550w4, VIN ending in 5457;
- Rolex Day-Date Presidential watch;
- 3 carat solitaire diamond engagement ring; and
- Gucci earrings.
A judgment for monetary relief is entered in favor of the Bureau and against Settling Relief Defendant in the amount of $483,662.60.
Within 21 days of the Effective Date, Settling Relief Defendant must pay to the Bureau, by wire transfer to the Bureau or to the Bureau’s agent, and according to the Bureau’s wiring instructions, $85,000 in partial satisfaction of the judgment. – Source
- Lexington Law Credit Repair Gets Hammered in Lawsuit Settlement. If You Sell Credit Repair – Wake Up! - August 28, 2023
- People That Got Scammed by Robocall Debt Relief Company Life Management Services of Orange County to Get Money Back - July 7, 2023
- Consumers Charged Illegal Student Loan Relief Fees to Get Some Scratch Back - July 7, 2023
