Subscribe to our mailing list

X

Consumers Get No Money in Persels & Associates / CareOne Settlement

By on March 14, 2012

Thanks to a tipster (send in your tips here), I found out the Middle District Court of Florida court has ruled in the settlement offer proposed in Miranda Day v. Persels & Associates, 3C, CareOne Credit Counseling, Freedom Point, Ascend One, Ruther & Associates, Jimmy Persels, Robyn Freedman, Bernaldo Dancel.

The settlement offer had been heralded as a disservice to consumers by Public Citizen in their filing against it. They said:

The proposed settlement provides benefits to defendants (a broad release from any liability to the 125,000 class members who paid substantial sums for debt settlement services), class counsel (attorney fees of up to $300,000), the representative plaintiff (an incentive payment of $5,000), and a research institute with no connections to the interests of the class or the objectives of this case (a cy press distribution of $100,000). But it provides absolutely no benefit to the class. A settlement that forces class members to surrender all of their claims in exchange for no consideration is not “fair, reasonable and adequate” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). The Court should deny final approval. – Source

Instead, what the court stated was “the proposed settlement is not the product of fraud or collusion, and that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution under the circumstances of this case.” – Source

Again, according to court documents, the final settlement is stated as being pushed forward by Class representative Miranda Day and some other defendants. “These parties argue that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate…”

Others besides Public Citizen opposed the settlement including the Attorney General’s of Connecticut, Florida, Maine, West Virginia, New York, and Oregon.

Attorney James Felman for the Class of consumers is reported to have noted that although the settlement is not ideal because it fails to get money back into the hands of the Class members, it does hold the defendants accountable for their actions by providing some relief.

Despite the objections that the Class members would not receive any money, none of the objectors have proposed a better solution. Felman also explained that the overwhelming majority (98.4%) of the Class members, including the objectors, were provided sufficient notice regarding the proposed settlement and given an opportunity to opt out of the Class. However, only 325 of over 125,000 Class members submitted exclusion requests.

Felman went on to state that even if they did win money for the Class there was uncertainty in collecting any judgment since his investigation revealed the defendants are facing “financial hardship.”

In the end, only one consumer, Miranda Day received $5,000. All other consumers received nothing. The court noted that distributing the $100,000 charitable distribution to the 125,000 Class members made it impractical and not feasible.

READ  Persels & Associates and Care One Settle Nationwide Class Action. Lawyers Win.

But thank goodness we got the elephant out of the room.


Last step, fill out the information below or call us for Priority Assistance.

What problems are you having with your report?

Your first name is required. Your first name is required to be at least 2 characters. Your first name cannot be longer than 50 characters.
Your last name is required. Your last name is required to be at least 2 characters. Your last name cannot be longer than 50 characters.
Your email is required.
Your phone is required. Your 10 digit phone number is required.
Your state is required.
Your age is required. Your age must be greater than 18. Your age must be less than 100.

By clicking on the "Contact Me" button above, you consent, acknowledge, and agree to the following: Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and to receive electronic communications. We take your privacy seriously. That you are providing express "written" consent for Debt.com or appropriate service provider(s) to call you (including through automated means; e.g. autodialing, text and pre-recorded messaging) via telephone, mobile device (including SMS and MMS - charges may apply), even if your telephone number is currently listed on any internal, corporate, state or federal Do-Not-Call list. Consent is not required as a condition to utilize Debt.com services and you are under no obligation to purchase anything.

By clicking on the “Contact me” button above, you consent, acknowledge, and agree to the following: (1)That you are providing express “written” consent for Lexington Law Firm, Debt.com or appropriate service provider(s) to call you (including through automated means; e.g. autodialing, text and pre-recorded messaging) via telephone, mobile device (including SMS and MMS – charges may apply), or dialed manually, at my residential or cellular number, even if your telephone number is currently listed on any internal, corporate, state or federal Do-Not-Call list; and (2)Lexington Law’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and Debt.com’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Consent is not required as a condition to utilize Lexington Law or Debt.com services and you are under no obligation to purchase anything.

About Steve Rhode

Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.

3 Comments

  1. Angelo

    March 15, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    $300k in attorney fees and $5k to one consumer?  

    Once again, legalized extortion…our legal system is broken….so sad!

  2. Errick

    March 15, 2012 at 11:05 am

    I also like the following reasoning: nobody could come up with a better settlement, so I am going to approve this one.  Did they teach you that in judge school?  Wait an idea is coming to me, how about just approving the settlement for Florida and letting the other states fend for themselves?  It’s not like they were getting anything anyway.  Nice.

  3. Amy Kleinpeter

    March 15, 2012 at 10:44 am

    This is so ridiculous, the fact that the consumers were not even able to get a percentage of fees paid back, much less any compensatory damages, is an outrage.  I cannot believe the attorney used the fact that people did not opt out as evidence that it was OK to get a bad settlement.  So the fact that the majority of consumers trusted his ability to do a good job made it OK to sell them out?  Nice.

Share a Comment / Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: