IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN RE: LIBERTY REFUND )

ANTICIPATION LOAN LITIGATION ) MDL NO: 2334

)

) NO: 1:2012-cv-02949 - JBG

This Document Relates to: )

) JUDGE JOAN B. GOTTSCHALL

ALL CASES )

PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 1 of 124 PageID #:153
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................1

A. Plaintiffs...................................................................................................................1

Arkansas...................................................................................................................1

California .................................................................................................................1

Florida ......................................................................................................................1

Illinois......................................................................................................................2

Maryland..................................................................................................................2

Minnesota.................................................................................................................2

New York.................................................................................................................2

North Carolina .........................................................................................................3

Wisconsin.................................................................................................................3

B. Defendant.................................................................................................................3

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................4

III. FACTS .................................................................................................................................5

A. Defendant Aggressively Markets, Facilitates, and Makes Refund 

Application Loan Products at Exorbitant Triple Digit Interest Rates to the 

Working Poor and Minorities ..................................................................................5

B. Defendant’s Illegal Conduct ....................................................................................6

C. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Period.........................................................................8

1. Refund Transfers............................................................................................9

2. RALs and RAL Advances............................................................................11

D. Republic Bank Period ............................................................................................13

1. ERCs and ERDs...........................................................................................14

2. Republic RALs.............................................................................................16

IV. STATE SPECIFIC REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN LAWS ......................................18

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 2 of 124 PageID #:154
ii

A. Arkansas Refund Anticipation Loan Act...............................................................18

B. California Refund Anticipation Loan Laws...........................................................20

C. Illinois Tax Refund Anticipation Loan Disclosure Act .........................................22

D. Maryland Refund Anticipation Loan and Check Act ............................................24

E. Minnesota Refund Anticipation Loan Laws..........................................................26

F. New York Refund Anticipation Loan Laws..........................................................30

G. North Carolina Refund Anticipation Loan Act......................................................33

H. Wisconsin Refund Anticipation Loan Act.............................................................35

V. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT ............36

VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS.........................................38

A. Arkansas.................................................................................................................38

Zaneta Houston ......................................................................................................38

Daphne Shorter ......................................................................................................39

B. California ...............................................................................................................40

Charles Madubuike ................................................................................................40

George Washington, Jr. and Margaret Washington...............................................41

C. Florida ....................................................................................................................42

Pamela Patterson....................................................................................................42

D. Illinois....................................................................................................................42

Timothy Rowden ...................................................................................................42

E. Maryland................................................................................................................43

Keonna Brown .......................................................................................................43

F. Minnesota...............................................................................................................45

Heather Reyes........................................................................................................45

G. New York...............................................................................................................46

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 3 of 124 PageID #:155
iii

Ronald Topping .....................................................................................................46

Kevin and Yolanda Goodwin.................................................................................47

H. North Carolina .......................................................................................................49

Douglas Glover......................................................................................................49

Shamira Jones ........................................................................................................50

William Reynolds ..................................................................................................51

I. Wisconsin...............................................................................................................52

Terrance Patterson .................................................................................................52

VII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................53

A. Class Definition .....................................................................................................53

National Class (Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Period) ...........................................53

Arkansas Class.......................................................................................................54

California Class......................................................................................................54

Florida Class ..........................................................................................................55

Illinois Class...........................................................................................................56

Maryland Class ......................................................................................................56

Minnesota Class.....................................................................................................57

New York Classes..................................................................................................57

North Carolina Class..............................................................................................58

Wisconsin Class.....................................................................................................59

Multi-State Class....................................................................................................59

B. Rule 23(a) Prerequisites.........................................................................................61

C. Rule 23(b) Prerequisites.........................................................................................64

VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION......................................................................................................64

A. National Class........................................................................................................64

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 4 of 124 PageID #:156
iv

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of California Refund Anticipation 

Loan Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §22250, et seq.)...............................64

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, 

§17500, et seq. – False Advertising...........................................................66

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, 

§17200, et seq. – Unlawful, Fraudulent, and Unfair Business Acts 

and Practices ..............................................................................................67

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of California Usury Laws..................68

B. Arkansas.................................................................................................................70

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of Arkansas Refund Anticipation 

Loan Act (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-116-101, et seq.) ....................................70

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Arkansas Deceptive 

Trade Practices Act..................................................................................771

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of Arkansas Usury Laws.....................73

C. California ...............................................................................................................75

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of California Refund Anticipation 

Loan Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §22250, et seq.)...............................75

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, 

§17500, et seq. – False Advertising...........................................................76

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, 

§17200, et seq. – Unlawful, Fraudulent, and Unfair Business Acts 

and Practices ..............................................................................................77

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of California Usury Laws..................79

D. Florida ....................................................................................................................80

1. First Cause of Action: Violations of Consumer Protection Statutes.........80

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of Florida Usury Laws .....................82

E. Illinois....................................................................................................................84

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of Illinois Tax Refund 

Anticipation Loan Disclosure Act (815 ILCS 177/1, et seq.)....................84

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Illinois Uniform 

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1, et seq.).........................85

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 5 of 124 PageID #:157
v

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud 

and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.) .............86

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of Illinois Usury Laws.......................88

F. Maryland................................................................................................................89

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of Maryland Refund Anticipation 

Loan and Check Act (MD. Commercial Law Code § 14-3801, et 

seq.)............................................................................................................89

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Maryland Consumer 

Protection Act (MD. Commercial Law Code § 13-301, et seq.) ...............92

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of Maryland Usury Laws....................94

G. MINNESOTA........................................................................................................96

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of the Minnesota Refund 

Anticipation Loan Laws (Minn. Stat. § 270c.445, et seq.)........................96

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of Unlawful Trade Practices 

Act (Minn. Stat. § 325D.09, et seq.)..........................................................98

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade 

Practices Act (Minn. Stat. § 325D.43, et seq.)...........................................99

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of Minnesota Usury Laws...............100

H. NEW YORK........................................................................................................101

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of N.Y. CLS Tax § 32 (On 

Behalf of the New York State Class).......................................................101

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 372 

(On Behalf of the New York State Subclass) ..........................................102

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of New York City 

Administrative Code §20-739, et seq. (On Behalf of the New York 

City Subclass). .........................................................................................103

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of New York’s Deceptive 

Trade Practices Laws (NY CLS Gen Bus § 349, et seq.) (On 

Behalf of New York State Class).............................................................104

5. Fifth Cause of Action: Violation of New York Usury Laws..................105

I. North Carolina .....................................................................................................106

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 6 of 124 PageID #:158
vi

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of North Carolina Refund 

Anticipation Loan Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-245, et seq.)......................106

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of North Carolina’s Consumer 

Protection Laws .......................................................................................107

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of North Carolina Usury Laws..........109

J. Wisconsin.............................................................................................................110

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of Wisconsin Refund 

Anticipation Loan Laws (Wis. Stat. §422.310) .......................................110

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Wisconsin Consumer 

Act............................................................................................................111

3. Third Cause of Action: Fraudulent Representations and Deceptive 

Trade Practices in Violation of §100.18(1), Wis. Stats. ..........................111

K. Multi-State Class Claims.....................................................................................113

IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................114

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 7 of 124 PageID #:159
1

COME NOW Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and file 

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint against Defendant, JTH Holding, Inc., and its 

affiliate and subsidiary JTH Tax, Inc. d/b/a Liberty Tax Services (“Liberty” or “Defendant”). 

Plaintiffs seek certification of their claims against Defendant as a class action. Plaintiffs allege, 

based on personal knowledge as to Defendant’s actions and upon information and belief as to all 

other matters, as follows:

I. PARTIES.

A. PLAINTIFFS.

ARKANSAS

1. Plaintiffs Zaneta Houston and Daphne Shorter are citizens of Arkansas, residing 

in the Eastern District of Arkansas, who had their taxes prepared at an office of Defendant 

located in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Defendant facilitated and made a Refund 

Anticipation Loan (“RAL”) for each Plaintiff during the Class Period.

CALIFORNIA

2. Plaintiffs Charles Madubuike, George Washington, Jr., and Margaret Washington 

are citizens of California, residing in the Central District of California, who had their taxes 

prepared at offices of Defendant located in the Central District of California. Defendant 

facilitated and made a Refund Anticipation Loan (“RAL”) for each Plaintiff during the Class 

Period.

FLORIDA

3. Plaintiff Pamela Patterson is a citizen of Florida, residing in the Southern District 

of Florida, who had her taxes prepared at an office of Defendant located in the Southern District 

of Florida. Defendant facilitated and made Refund Anticipation Loans (“RALs”) for Plaintiff

during the Class Period.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 8 of 124 PageID #:160
2

ILLINOIS

4. Plaintiff Timothy Rowden is a citizen of Illinois, residing in the Northern District 

of Illinois, who had his taxes prepared at an office of Defendant located in the Northern District 

of Illinois. Defendant facilitated and made a Refund Anticipation Loan (“RAL”) for Plaintiff 

during the Class Period.

MARYLAND

5. Plaintiff Keonna Brown is a citizen of Maryland, residing in the District of 

Maryland, who had her taxes prepared at an office of Defendant in the District of Maryland.

Defendant facilitated and made a Refund Anticipation Loan (“RAL”) for Plaintiff during the 

Class Period.

MINNESOTA

6. Plaintiff Heather Reyes is a citizen of Minnesota, residing in the District of 

Minnesota, who had her taxes prepared at an office of Defendant located in the District of 

Minnesota. Defendant facilitated and made a Refund Anticipation Loan (“RAL”) for Plaintiff 

during the Class Period.

NEW YORK

7. Plaintiff Ronald Topping is a citizen of New York, residing in the Southern 

District of New York, who had his taxes prepared at an office of Defendant located in the 

Southern District of New York. Defendant facilitated and made a Refund Anticipation Loan 

(“RAL”) for Plaintiff during the Class Period.

8. Plaintiffs Kevin and Yolanda Goodwin are citizens of New York, residing in the 

Southern District of New York, who had their taxes prepared at an office of Defendant located in 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 9 of 124 PageID #:161
3

the Southern District of New York. Defendant facilitated and made a Refund Anticipation Loan 

(“RAL”) for Plaintiffs during the Class Period.

NORTH CAROLINA

9. Plaintiffs Shamira Jones and William Reynolds are citizens of North Carolina, 

residing in the Middle District of North Carolina, who had their taxes prepared at an office of 

Defendant located in the Middle District of North Carolina. Defendant facilitated and made a 

Refund Anticipation Loan (“RAL”) for each Plaintiff during the Class Period.

10. Plaintiff Douglas Glover is a citizen of North Carolina, residing in the Middle 

District of North Carolina, who had his taxes prepared at an office of Defendant located in the 

Middle District of North Carolina. Defendant facilitated and made a Refund Anticipation Loan 

(“RAL”) for Plaintiff during the Class Period.

WISCONSIN

11. Plaintiff Terrance R. Patterson is a citizen of Wisconsin, residing in the Eastern 

District of Wisconsin, who had his taxes prepared at an office of Defendant located in the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin. Defendant facilitated and made a Refund Anticipation Loan 

(“RAL”) for Plaintiff during the Class Period.

B. DEFENDANT.

12. Defendant JTH Holding, Inc. is a holding company engaged through its 

subsidiaries as a franchisor and operator of a system of income tax preparation offices located in 

the United States and Canada, and its principal operations are conducted through its largest 

subsidiary, Defendant JTH Tax, Inc. d/b/a Liberty Tax Services. Defendant provides tax 

preparation services through more than 3,800 offices in the United States and Canada, all doing 

business under the name Liberty Tax Service. Both Defendant entities are Delaware 

corporations with their principal places of business at 1716 Corporate Landing Parkway, 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 10 of 124 PageID #:162
4

Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454. Defendant JTH Holding, Inc. can be served through its 

registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange 

Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Defendant JTH Tax, Inc. can be served through its registered 

agent, Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 1679 S. DuPont Highway, Suite 100, Dover, Delaware 

19901. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.

13. Each case was originally filed in the proper jurisdiction in their respective state

courts.

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this class action under the Class 

Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) because there are more than one hundred Class Members from 

various states, and the aggregate of proposed classes’ claims are more than $5 million. 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d).

15. This Court, created for multidistrict litigation consolidated pre-trial proceedings,

has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has sufficient contacts with Illinois, 

either individually or as a member of a single business enterprise with sufficient contacts in 

Illinois.

16. Venue is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to the Order of the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation which transferred and centralized all related actions in this 

Court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

17. Without waiver of their respective rights to request that their claims be transferred 

back to the proper United States District Courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for trial, Plaintiffs 

assert venue is proper in this District for pre-trial multidistrict litigation proceedings under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1407, as this action was transferred to this District as part of coordinated 

pre-trial multidistrict litigation proceedings.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 11 of 124 PageID #:163
5

III. FACTS.

A. DEFENDANT AGGRESSIVELY MARKETS, FACILITATES, AND 

MAKES REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN PRODUCTS AT EXORBITANT 

TRIPLE-DIGIT INTEREST RATES TO THE WORKING POOR AND 

MINORITIES.

18. Refund Anticipation Loans (“RAL”) are short-term loans or extensions of credit 

that are secured and repaid directly from the consumer’s IRS tax refunds. These loans are 

marketed, arranged, facilitated, and made by for-profit tax preparers such as Defendant in 

coordination with banking entities. RALs include exorbitant finance charges that, when properly 

calculated in accordance with the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and relevant state laws, often 

exceed 100% APR.

19. Although a significant profit source to Defendant and other for-profit tax 

preparers, and a fundamental part of their business models, these aggressively marketed loan 

products provide little to no value to consumers at predatory interest rates and fees, often in 

conjunction with exorbitant tax preparation fees for straightforward tax filings. Tax filers can 

usually get their federal tax refund in 8 to 15 days by direct deposit, without getting a loan or 

paying any extra fees to companies like Defendant. The IRS usually issues refunds by check 

within 21 to 28 days.

20. The Department of Treasury has determined that RAL usage is highly 

concentrated in poor and minority communities.1 Across the U.S., just 20% of all communities 

account for nearly 70% of all RALs.2 Defendant and other tax preparers target these highinterest-rate loans to minorities and the working poor, particularly those who receive the Earned 

Income Tax Credit (“EITC”). The EITC is a refundable credit provided through the tax system 

 

1

“Characteristics of User of Refund Anticipation Loans and Refund Anticipation Checks,” U.S. Department of 

Treasury, 2010, at p. 1.

2

Id. at p. 17-20. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 12 of 124 PageID #:164
6

since 1975, with the intent of boosting low-wage workers out of poverty while also encouraging 

work. It is the largest federal anti-poverty program with over $50 billion provided to 21.7 

million families in 2010 alone.3It is axiomatic that EITC money is meant to reach the 

individuals and families who qualify.

21. The median adjusted gross income among RAL consumers is $19,768.4 In 2008, 

although only 17% of tax filers received the EITC, EITC claimants comprised 64% of RAL 

consumers. Viewed another way, 33% of EITC claimants purchased a RAL, compared to only 

3% of non-EITC claimants.5

22. Defendant aggressively markets RALs to its customers for whom it provides tax 

preparation services, as these predatory loan products are a critical part of its business model. In 

2009, about 74% of Defendant’s customers obtained a RAL.6 Within the general population, by 

comparison, less than 15% of tax filers opted for these products. This is not mere coincidence. 

Defendant aggressively markets RALs to the working poor so that a significant portion of the 

EITC goes to Defendant rather than the intended beneficiaries. Fees from these predatory loan 

products accounted for 28% of Defendant’s revenue in 2009, according to Defendant’s 

Consolidated Financial Statement for 2010.

B. DEFENDANT’S ILLEGAL CONDUCT. 

23. The term “Refund Anticipation Loan” must be construed in the larger context of a 

federal and state regulatory framework directed at ending predatory loan practices by tax 

preparers. In addition to the twenty state RAL laws across the country7, the federal government 

 

3

Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), 2010 Tax Statistics

4

“Characteristics of User of Refund Anticipation Loans and Refund Anticipation Checks,” U.S. Department of 

Treasury, 2010, at p.16.

5

Id. at 13.

6 National Consumer Law Center/Consumer Federation of America’s “2011 Refund Anticipation Loan Report” at p. 

22. 

7 National Consumer Law Center/Consumer Federation of America’s “2011 Refund Anticipation Loan Report” at p. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 13 of 124 PageID #:165
7

also has taken an active role in rooting out predatory practices in the tax preparation context. As 

discussed below, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the Office of Thrift 

Supervision (“OTS”) have forced Defendant’s banking partners out of the RAL market, thus 

requiring Defendant to find new banking partners for its RAL products.

24. Specifically, the FDIC has taken a firm position that loan products like 

Defendant’s are RALs; that is, predatory tax loans triggering consumer protections. For 

example, in May 2011, the FDIC issued a cease-and-desist letter against Republic Bank, 

lambasting the lender’s arrangements with various partners who, like Defendant, are tax 

preparation electronic refund originators (EROs). See U.S. F.D.I.C., Amended Notice of 

Charges for an Order to Cease and Desist, In the Matter of Republic Bank & Trust Company, 

Louisville, Kentucky (May 3, 2011)]. 

25. For example, Defendant partnered with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) in 

order to market, facilitate, and make RAL products under the name of Refund Transfers, RALs, 

and RAL Advances. However, prior to the 2009 tax season, the OCC “withheld approval for the 

bank [SBBT] to make RALs given their level of troubled assets.” Dept. of the Treasury, 

Characteristics of Users of Refund Anticipation Loans and Refund Anticipation Checks 7 (2010). 

With SBBT out of the RAL business, Defendant partnered with Republic Bank and Trust 

(“Republic Bank”) to assist with RAL Products.

26. The relationship between Defendant and the banks used to facilitate and make 

each RAL product for Plaintiffs and Class Members during the Class Period was merely a 

scheme, device, and contrivance created by Defendant in an attempt to circumvent applicable 

usury laws.

 

29.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 14 of 124 PageID #:166
8

C. SANTA BARBARA BANK & TRUST PERIOD.

27. Throughout the Class Period, Defendant has facilitated and made RALs through 

an arrangement with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co. (“SBBT”), a division of the Pacific 

Capitol Bank, N.A. Defendant marketed, facilitated, and made various types of loan products

through SBBT, including products referred to as: (a) “Federal Refund Transfers,” (b) “State 

Refund Transfers,” (c) “Refund Anticipation Loans,” and (d) “RAL Advances” (collectively 

“SBBT RAL Products”). All of these SBBT RAL Products are RALs for purposes of this 

Complaint and the relevant state Refund Anticipation Loan laws.

28. Defendant has a high percentage of low-income customers and customers who 

receive the EITC. In addition, as set forth above, Defendant has a high percentage of customers 

who purchase the SBBT RAL Products. Many of Defendant’s customers cannot afford to pay 

Defendant’s fees for tax preparation services out of pocket. A key component to Defendant’s 

marketing campaign is that there is no up-front cost to the customer. Although, generally, 

Defendant requires fees for tax preparation services to be paid at the time the customer’s taxes 

are prepared, Defendant defers payment of those fees until the tax refund has been received from 

the IRS if the customer purchases a SBBT RAL Product. In the case of a SBBT Refund 

Anticipation Loan or RAL Advance, tax preparation fees are deducted from the loan funds when 

the loan is provided. In the case of a Refund Transfer, the tax preparation funds are deducted 

from the refund amount. On information and belief, this component of these loan products

expands the market for Defendant’s tax preparation services, increases the amount that can be 

charged for tax preparation services, and increases the franchise fees and royalties collected by 

Defendant.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 15 of 124 PageID #:167
9

1. Refund Transfers.

29. During the Class Period, Defendant, through its offices, facilitated and made 

Refund Transfers to its tax preparation customers (including Plaintiffs and all Class Members), 

following common practices and procedures and using uniform forms, applications, and 

disclosures as described below. Each RAL product entails the establishment of a “Temporary 

Deposit Account” in the consumer’s name at SBBT. The Temporary Deposit Account is a noninterest-bearing “account” established for the sole purpose of receiving the consumer’s federal 

and/or tax refund and disbursing those funds in a limited manner established by the loan 

documentation.

30. Defendant chooses the bank that will administer the Temporary Deposit Account. 

The consumers have no choice as to which bank manages their Temporary Deposit Account.

31. The consumer cannot make any other deposits to this dummy account or direct 

any other withdrawals. When the consumer’s tax return is sent to the IRS, the dummy account is 

identified as the destination for any refund to which the consumer may be entitled. Once the IRS 

is notified, the refund destination cannot be changed. If for any reason the consumer’s refund is 

not deposited in the dummy account or if the refund is less than anticipated based upon 

Defendant’s tax preparation services, the consumer is still held liable for the full amount of the 

loan.

32. When the consumer’s tax refund is deposited into the account, SBBT (as 

authorized to act on the consumer’s behalf, pursuant to the terms of the loan documentation) first 

disburses the funds to pay, among other things:

(a) The consumer’s debt to Defendant for the tax preparation fees;

(b) “Account Handling Fees” (i.e., finance charges) to Defendant and SBBT, 

including $30.95 minimum payment, and in some instances, an additional 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 16 of 124 PageID #:168
10

$10.00 fee if both a federal and a state tax refund is directed to the 

Temporary Deposit Account; and

(c) Any and all other debts to SBBT or other RAL lenders related to loan 

products sold to the consumer in previous tax years.

Any remaining funds are disbursed to the consumer either by check or by direct deposit to the 

consumer’s personal bank account.

33. The Refund Transfer loan products are RALs as defined by each of the state RAL 

acts and consumer protection statutes. Each product encompasses an extension of credit by 

Defendant of the fee for tax preparation services, which otherwise would be due at the time the 

services were provided. With a Refund Transfer, Defendant grants deferral of payment for 

approximately 12 days (the time period needed to receive the tax refund). Defendant provides no 

disclosure of the triple-digit interest rate or finance charge for the Refund Transfer loan products

in violation of the relevant state RAL laws, consumer protection statutes, and TILA. See, e.g., 

U.S. F.D.I.C. Amended Notice of Charges for an Order to Cease and Desist, In the Matter of 

Republic Bank & Trust Company, Louisville Kentucky, dated May 3, 2011 at ¶ 34 (“By failing to 

disclose to taxpayers in the Assisted Refund transactions that the TRAF [Tax Refund 

Administration Fees] are finance charges for deferral of the tax preparation fees owed, the EROs 

[Defendant and other electronic refund operators] have violated the written disclosure 

requirements under TILA on a nationwide basis in each Assisted Refund transaction”).

34. Defendant shoulders the risk of loss that exists if the tax refund funds are 

insufficient to cover the tax preparation costs or if no tax refund is issued at all.

35. Moreover, Defendant receives a portion of the loan fees/finance charge in 

violation of the Arkansas, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin RAL laws and consumer 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 17 of 124 PageID #:169
11

protection statutes. SBBT’s Refund Processing and Refund Anticipation Loan Application and

Agreement acknowledges that a portion of the fees from its loan products (Refund Transfers,

RALs, and RAL Advances) are shared with tax preparers such as Defendant, and Defendant’s 

consolidated financial statements (prepared by KPMG LLP and available at Defendant’s 

website) confirm receipt of such fees. Indeed, over a quarter of Defendant’s revenue in 2009 and 

2010 was derived from these loan products.

2. RALs and RAL Advances.

36. During the Class Period, Defendant marketed, facilitated, and made SBBT RALs 

and RAL Advances to its tax preparation customers, following common practices and procedures 

and using uniform forms, applications and disclosures as described below. As with a Refund 

Transfer, as described above, a SBBT entails the establishment of a dummy “Temporary Deposit 

Account” in the consumer’s name at SBBT.

37. The SBBT RALs and RAL Advances includes two components: (a) a loan and 

extension of credit of the fees for Defendant’s tax preparation services, just as with a Refund 

Transfer, and (b) a loan of additional funds also secured by the consumer’s tax refund. The 

consumer receives the RAL loan funds one or two days after their taxes are prepared and filed. 

With an RAL Advance, the consumer receives the loan funds the same day. 

38. When the consumer’s tax refund is deposited into the account, SBBT (as 

authorized to act on the consumer’s behalf, pursuant to the terms of the loan documentation) first 

disburses the funds to pay, among other things:

(a) The consumer’s debt to Defendant for the tax preparation fees;

(b) Any and all other debts for the SBBT RAL and/or RAL Advance;

(c) “Account Handling Fees” (i.e., finance charges) to Defendant and SBBT, 

including $30.95 minimum payment, and, in some instances, an additional 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 18 of 124 PageID #:170
12

$10.00 fee if both a federal and state tax refund is directed to the 

Temporary Deposit Account, as well as additional fees related to an RAL 

Advance; and

(d) Any and all other debts to SBBT or other RAL lenders related to loan 

products sold to the consumer in previous tax years.

Any remaining funds are disbursed to the consumer either by check or by direct deposit to the 

consumer’s personal bank account.

39. The SBBT RALs and RAL Advances are RALs, as defined by each of the state 

RAL acts and consumer protection statutes. Defendant misrepresents the finance charge by not 

including the Account Handling Fee (and where relevant, the additional fee for state tax refunds)

in the calculation of the finance charge, in violation of the relevant state RAL laws, consumer 

protection statutes and TILA. See, e.g., U.S. F.D.I.C. Amended Notice of Charges for an Order 

to Cease and Desist, In the Matter of Republic Bank & Trust Company, Louisville Kentucky, 

dated May 3, 2011 at ¶ 34 (“By failing to disclose to taxpayers in the Assisted Refund 

transactions that the TRAF [Tax Refund Administration Fees] are finance charges for deferral of 

the tax preparation fees owed, the EROs [Defendant and other electronic refund operators] have 

violated the written disclosure requirements under TILA on a nationwide basis in each Assisted 

Refund transaction”).

40. Moreover, Defendant receives a portion of the loan fees/finance charge in 

violation of the Arkansas, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin RAL laws and consumer 

protection statutes. SBBT’s Refund Processing and Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) 

Application and Agreement acknowledges that a portion of the fees from its RAL Products are 

shared with tax preparers such as Defendant, and Defendant’s consolidated financial statements 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 19 of 124 PageID #:171
13

(prepared by KPMG LLP and available at Defendant’s website) confirm receipt of such fees. 

Indeed, over a quarter of Defendant’s revenue in 2009 and 2010 was derived from these loan 

products.

D. REPUBLIC BANK PERIOD.

41. Throughout the Class Period, Defendant has facilitated and made RALs through 

an arrangement with Republic Bank and Trust Co. (“Republic Bank”), a state-chartered bank 

based in Kentucky. Defendant marketed, facilitated, and made two types of loan products: (a) 

Electronic Refund Check (“ERC”) or Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”), and (b) Refund 

Anticipation Loan (“Republic RAL”). All of these products are RALs for purposes of this 

Complaint and the relevant state Refund Anticipation Loan laws.

42. Defendant has a high percentage of low-income customers and customers who 

receive the EITC. In addition, as set forth above, Defendant has a high percentage of customers 

who purchase the Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD loan products. Many of Defendant’s 

customers cannot afford to pay Defendant’s fees for tax preparation services out of pocket. A 

key component to Defendant’s marketing campaign is that there is no up-front cost to the 

customer. Although, generally, Defendant requires fees for tax preparation services to be paid at 

the time the customer’s taxes are prepared, Defendant defers payment of those fees until the tax 

refund has been received from the IRS if the customer purchases Republic RAL, an ERC, or an 

ERD. In the case of a Republic RAL, tax preparation fees are deducted from the loan funds 

when the loan is provided. In the case of an ERC or ERD, the tax preparation funds are deducted 

from the refund amount. On information and belief, this component of these loan products

expands the market for Defendant’s tax preparation services, increases the amount that can be 

charged for tax preparation services, and increases the franchise fees and royalties collected by 

Defendant.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 20 of 124 PageID #:172
14

1. ERCs/ERDs.

43. During the Class period, Defendant, through its offices, facilitated and made 

ERCs/ERDs to its tax preparation customers (including Plaintiffs and all Class Members), 

following common practices and procedures and using uniform forms, applications, and 

disclosures as described below. Each loan product entails the establishment of a “Deposit 

Account” in the consumer’s name at Republic Bank. The Deposit Account is a non-interestbearing “account” established for the sole purpose of receiving the consumer’s federal and/or 

state tax refund and disbursing those funds in a limited manner established by the loan 

documentation.

44. Defendant chooses the bank that will administer the Deposit Account. The 

consumers have no choice as to which bank manages their Deposit Account.

45. The consumer cannot make any other deposits to this dummy account or direct 

any other withdrawals. When the consumer’s tax return is sent to the IRS, the dummy account is 

identified as the destination for any refund to which the consumer may be entitled. Once the IRS 

is notified, the refund destination cannot be changed. If for any reason the consumer’s refund is 

not deposited in the dummy account or if the refund is less than anticipated based upon 

Defendant’s tax preparation services, the consumer is still held liable for the full amount of the 

tax preparation fees charged by Defendant.

46. When the consumer’s tax refund is deposited into the account, Republic Bank (as 

authorized to act on the consumer’s behalf, pursuant to the terms of the loan documentation) first 

disburses the funds to pay, among other things:

(a) The consumer’s debt to Defendant for the tax preparation fees;

(b) “Bank Fees” (i.e., finance charges) to Defendant and Republic Bank, 

including $29.95 minimum payment of a “Tax Refund Administration 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 21 of 124 PageID #:173
15

Fee,” and, for the 2009 tax year, an additional $10.00 “Administration 

Fee” if a state tax refund is directed to the Deposit Account; and

(c) Any and all other debts to Republic Bank including, for example, debts 

related to loan products sold to the consumer in previous tax years.

Any remaining funds are disbursed to the consumer either by check (if the consumer purchased 

an ERC) or by direct deposit to the consumer’s personal bank account (if the consumer 

purchased an ERD).

47. The ERC/ERD loan products are RALs as defined by each of the state RAL acts 

and consumer protection statutes. Each product encompasses an extension of credit by 

Defendant of the fee for tax preparation services, which otherwise would be due at the time the 

services were provided. With an ERC/ERD, Defendant grants deferral of payment for 

approximately 12 days (the time period needed to receive the tax refund). Defendant provides no 

disclosure of the triple-digit interest rate or finance charge for the ERC/ERD loan products in 

violation of the relevant state RAL laws, consumer protection statutes, and TILA. See, e.g., U.S. 

F.D.I.C. Amended Notice of Charges for an Order to Cease and Desist, In the Matter of Republic 

Bank & Trust Company, Louisville Kentucky, dated May 3, 2011 at ¶ 34 (“By failing to disclose 

to taxpayers in the Assisted Refund transactions that the TRAF [Tax Refund Administration 

Fees] are finance charges for deferral of the tax preparation fees owed, the EROs [Defendant and 

other electronic refund operators] have violated the written disclosure requirements under TILA 

on a nationwide basis in each Assisted Refund transaction”).

48. Defendant shoulders the risk of loss that exists if the tax refund funds are 

insufficient to cover the tax preparation costs or if no tax refund is issued at all. The bank merely 

performs an administrative function.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 22 of 124 PageID #:174
16

49. Moreover, Defendant receives a portion of the loan fees/finance charge in 

violation of the Arkansas, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin RAL laws and consumer 

protection statutes. Republic’s Bank Product and Application Agreement acknowledges that a 

portion of the fees from its loan products (ERC/ERD and Republic RAL) are shared with tax 

preparers such as Defendant, and Defendant’s consolidated financial statements (prepared by 

KPMG LLP and available at Defendant’s website) confirm receipt of such fees. Indeed, over a 

quarter of Defendant’s revenue in 2009 and 2010 was derived from these loan products.

2. Republic RALs.

50. During the Class period, Defendant marketed, facilitated, and made Republic 

RALs to its tax preparation customers, following common practices and procedures and using 

uniform forms, applications and disclosures as described below. As with an ERC/ERD, as 

described above, a Republic RAL entails the establishment of a dummy “Deposit Account” in 

the consumer’s name at Republic Bank.

51. The Republic RAL includes two components: (a) a loan and extension of credit 

of the fees for Defendant’s tax preparation services, just as with an ERC or ERD, and (b) a loan 

of additional funds also secured by the consumer’s tax refund. The consumer receives the RAL 

loan funds one or two days after their taxes are prepared and filed. For the 2009 tax year, the 

loans were between $300 and $7,500. For the 2010 tax year, the loans were for a set amount of 

$1,561.22.

52. When the consumer’s tax refund is deposited into the account, Republic Bank (as 

authorized to act on the consumer’s behalf, pursuant to the terms of the loan documentation) first 

disburses the funds to pay, among other things:

(a) The consumer’s debt to Defendant for the tax preparation fees;

(b) The consumer’s debt for the advanced funds;

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 23 of 124 PageID #:175
17

(c) “Bank Fees” (i.e., finance charges) to Defendant and Republic Bank, 

including: (i) $29.95 minimum payment of the “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee,” (ii) what Republic terms the “finance charge” 

(0.78% of the loan amount in 2009 and set amount of $16.22 in 2010), (iii) 

in 2010 only, a $45.00 “Credit Investigation Fee;” and (iv) in some 

instances a $10.00 “Administrative Fee” for state tax refunds; and

(d) Any and all other debts to Republic Bank including, for example, debts 

related to loan products sold to the consumer in previous tax years.

Any remaining funds are disbursed to the consumer either by check (if the consumer purchased 

an ERC) or by direct deposit to the consumer’s personal bank account (if the consumer 

purchased an ERD).

53. The Republic RALs are RALs, as defined by each of the state RAL acts and 

consumer protection statutes. Defendant misrepresents the finance charge by not including the 

Tax Refund Administration Fee in the calculation of the finance charge, in violation of the 

relevant state RAL laws, consumer protection statutes and TILA. See, e.g., U.S. F.D.I.C. 

Amended Notice of Charges for an Order to Cease and Desist, In the Matter of Republic Bank & 

Trust Company, Louisville Kentucky, dated May 3, 2011 at ¶ 34 (“By failing to disclose to 

taxpayers in the Assisted Refund transactions that the TRAF [Tax Refund Administration Fees] 

are finance charges for deferral of the tax preparation fees owed, the EROs [Defendant and other 

electronic refund operators] have violated the written disclosure requirements under TILA on a 

nationwide basis in each Assisted Refund transaction”).

54. Moreover, Defendant receives a portion of the loan fees and finance charge in 

violation of the Arkansas, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin RAL laws and consumer 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 24 of 124 PageID #:176
18

protection statutes. Republic’s Bank Product and Application Agreement acknowledges that a 

portion of the fees from its loan products (ERC/ERD and Republic RAL) are shared with tax 

preparers such as Defendant, and Defendant’s consolidated financial statements (prepared by 

KPMG LLP and available at Defendant’s website) confirm receipt of such fees. Indeed, over a 

quarter of Defendant’s revenue in 2009 and 2010 was derived from these loan products.

IV. STATE SPECIFIC REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN LAWS.

A. ARKANSAS REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN ACT.

55. Many states, including the state of Arkansas, have passed laws specifically 

targeting RALs in an effort to eradicate long-standing, deceptive and unconscionable practices in 

the for-profit tax preparer industry. The Refund Anticipation Loan Act, Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-

101 et seq. (“ARALA”) was enacted in 2009 with the expressed intent of the Arkansas General 

Assembly to “protect consumers who enter into a refund anticipation loan and a refund 

anticipation check transaction.” Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-101(b). ARALA focuses on the 

practices of tax preparers like Defendant who market, facilitate, and make RALs.

56. Under ARALA, a RAL includes any “loan arranged to be paid directly or 

indirectly from the proceeds of the consumer’s income tax refund or tax credits.” Ark. Code 

Ann. §4-116-102(4)(A). A RAL “includes any sale, assignment, or purchase of a consumer’s tax 

refund at a discount or fee, whether or not the consumer is required to repay the buyer or 

assignee if the Internal Revenue Service denies or reduces the consumer’s tax refund.” Ark. 

Code Ann. §4-116-102(4)(B).

57. ARALA defines a “facilitator” as a person, other than a bank, savings and loan or 

credit union, who, among other things, “processes, receives or accepts an application or 

agreement” for a RAL, “services or collects upon” a RAL, or “facilitates the making of” a RAL. 

Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-102(6). Defendant is a facilitator as defined by ARALA.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 25 of 124 PageID #:177
19

58. ARALA prohibits “facilitators” such as Defendant from engaging in certain 

practices and requires the facilitators to disclose, in writing and orally, certain critical 

information about RALs including the finance charges and lower-cost alternatives. Most 

relevant to this class action are ARALA’s disclosure requirements and prohibition on the 

facilitator/tax preparer charging or imposing any fees for RALs other than fees charged by the 

creditor or bank.

59. ARALA requires all facilitators to disclose conspicuously on a “colored paper 

form separate from the application” and in large type (ranging from “14-point to 18-point”) 

specific information about the interest rate, fees and timing of the RAL, as well as alternative 

means to receive refunds from the IRS in a timely manner without exorbitant add-on charges. 

Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-105 (emphasis added). These written disclosures are required to be 

separate, conspicuous, in large type and on colored paper so that they are not lost amidst multiple 

pages of fine print. Id. Facilitators are also required to make similar disclosures orally to each 

consumer and to post prominently these disclosures at each office on a document measuring no 

less than sixteen by twenty inches in 28-point type. Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-104 & 106.

60. Perhaps the most critical disclosure required by ARALA is the interest rate for 

any loan product. ARALA requires all facilitators to disclose on colored paper in 14-point type 

face the interest rate as “calculated utilizing the guidelines established under the federal Truth in 

Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq., as it existed on January 1, 2009.” Ark. Code Ann. §4-

116-105(a)(4). This same interest rate also must be accurately disclosed in the prominently 

displayed office posting and in individualized oral disclosures to the consumer. Ark. Code Ann. 

§4-116-104(b) & 106(a); see also Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-107(5) (“A facilitator shall not 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 26 of 124 PageID #:178
20

misrepresent a material fact or condition of a refund anticipation loan or refund anticipation 

check”).

61. In addition, ARALA prohibits the tax preparer, or any other entity other than the 

third-party bank or creditor, from receiving any fee related to an RAL, ERC, or ERD. Ark. Code 

Ann. §4-116-107(2)(A) (“A facilitator shall not charge or impose any fee or charge or require 

consideration in the making or facilitating of a refund anticipation loan or refund anticipation 

check apart from the fee charged by the creditor or bank that provides the loan or check.”). 

Instead, a tax preparer can only receive the same fees that would be charged to a consumer who 

did not receive a RAL or other tax-related financial products. Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-

107(2)(B).

62. A facilitator who violates any provision of ARALA also violates the Arkansas 

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. §4-88-101, et seq. (“ADTPA”), and a consumer 

has all rights and remedies provided under the ADTPA for each ARALA violation. Ark. Code 

Ann. §4-116-108(a). In addition, a facilitator who willfully violates any provision of ARALA is 

liable directly to the consumer for (a) actual and compensatory damages, (b) statutory damages 

of $1,000, and (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of prosecution. Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-

108(b).

B. CALIFORNIA REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN LAWS.

63. The California statutes governing RALs and tax preparers, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 

§ 22250, et seq. (“California RAL laws”), focus on the practices of tax preparers like Defendant 

who market, facilitate and make RALs.

64. Under California RAL laws, a RAL includes any “loan, whether provided by the 

tax preparer or another entity, such as a financial institution, in anticipation of, and whose 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 27 of 124 PageID #:179
21

payment is secured by, a client's federal or state income tax refund or by both.” Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 22251(f).

65. California RAL laws define a “tax preparer” as a person or business entity, who, 

among other things, “assists with or prepares tax returns for another person or who assumes final 

responsibility for completed work on a return.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22251(a)(1).

66. Defendant is a “tax preparer,” as defined by California RAL laws.

67. California RAL laws prohibit tax preparers such as Defendant from engaging in 

certain practices with regard to marketing, facilitating and making RALs, requiring written 

disclosures of certain critical information about RALs, such as the finance charges and lowercost alternatives. Specifically, prior to the client's completion of the RAL application, California 

RAL laws require all tax preparers/facilitators to provide the client with “a clear, written 

disclosure” conspicuously detailing information about the interest rate, fees and timing of the 

RAL, as well as alternative means to receive refunds from the IRS in a timely manner without 

exorbitant add-on charges. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22253.1(d)(1).

68. Additionally, prior to the client’s consummation of the RAL transaction, a tax 

preparer/facilitator must provide a disclosure in either written or electronic form conspicuously 

detailing all fees associated with the loan, more cost-effective means of receiving refunds from 

the IRS, and the loan’s interest rate as calculated by guidelines established in the Truth in 

Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq.). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22253.1(d)(2).

69. Tax preparers are also required to post these disclosures prominently at each 

office on a document measuring no less than sixteen by twenty inches in 28-point type. Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22253.1(b)-(c). These postings and the multiple required written 

disclosures presented to clients are purposely meant to be separate, conspicuous, and in large 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 28 of 124 PageID #:180
22

type so that they are not lost amidst multiple pages of fine print. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 

22253.1(b)-(d).

70. Perhaps the most critical disclosure required by California RAL laws is the 

interest rate for any loan product. California RAL laws require all tax preparers to disclose the 

interest rate for RALs “using the guidelines established under the federal Truth in Lending Act 

(15 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 and following)” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22253.1(d)(2). This same 

interest rate must also be accurately disclosed in the prominently displayed office posting. Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22251(g); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22253.1(b)-(c); see also Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 22253.1(f)(2) (A tax preparer who facilitates or offers to facilitate a refund 

anticipation loan is prohibited from “[m]isrepresenting a material factor or condition of a refund 

anticipation loan.”).

71. A tax preparer who willfully violates any provision of California RAL laws is 

liable directly to the consumer for (a) statutory damages of $1,000, and (b) reasonable attorney’s 

fees and costs of prosecution. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22257.

8

C. ILLINOIS TAX REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN DISCLOSURE ACT.

72. The State of Illinois has passed laws specifically targeting RALs. The Tax 

Refund Anticipation Loan Disclosure Act, 815 ILCS 177/1, et seq. (“TRALDA”) focuses on the 

practices of tax preparers like Defendant who market, facilitate, and make RALs.

73. Under TRALDA, a RAL includes any “loan arranged to be repaid directly from 

the proceeds of a borrower’s income tax refunds.” 815 ILCS 177/5.

 

8 The “Santa Barbara Bank & Trust” (SBBT) Refund Processing and Refund Anticpation Loan (RAL) Application 

and Agreement” provides in part:

The enforcement and interpretation of this Application and Agreement and the transactions contemplated 

therein (including, without limitation, the applicable interest rate) shall be governed by the laws of the State 

of California applicable to contracts executed and to be performed in the State of California by residents of 

the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law, and, to the extent applicable, the laws of the 

United States of America.

Application of California law to the claims of the National Class is therefore appropriate.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 29 of 124 PageID #:181
23

74. TRALDA defines a “facilitator” as a person, other than a bank, savings and loan 

or credit union, who, among other things, “processes, receives or accepts for delivery an 

application or agreement” for a RAL, “issues a check in payment of” a RAL, or “in any other 

manner acts to allow the making of” a RAL. Id. Defendant is a facilitator as defined by 

TRALDA.

75. TRALDA prohibits “facilitators” such as Defendant from engaging in certain 

practices and requires the facilitators to disclose, in writing, certain critical information about 

RALs, including the finance charges associated with the loans and lower-cost alternatives. Most 

relevant to this class action are TRALDA’s disclosure requirements.

76. TRALDA requires all facilitators to disclose conspicuously, on a “document that 

is separate from the application,” specific information about the interest rate, fees and timing of 

the RAL, as well as alternative means to receive refunds from the IRS in a timely manner 

without exorbitant add-on charges. 815 ILCS 177/10 (emphasis added). These written 

disclosures are required to be separate and conspicuous, so that they are not lost amidst multiple 

pages of fine print. Id.

77. Perhaps the most critical disclosure required by TRALDA is the interest rate for 

any loan product. TRALDA requires all facilitators to disclose, on a document separate from the 

loan materials, “the Annual Percentage Rate utilizing a 10-day time period.” 815 ILCS 

177/10(1.5).

78. A facilitator who violates any provision of TRALDA is liable directly to the 

aggrieved borrower for: (a) an amount equal to three times the RAL fee, and (b) reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs of prosecution. 815 ILCS 177/15.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 30 of 124 PageID #:182
24

D. MARYLAND REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN AND CHECK ACT.

79. Maryland’s RAL law, MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §14-3801, et seq. (West 2011) 

focuses on the practices of tax preparers like Defendant who market, facilitate, and make RALs.

80. Under Maryland’s RAL law, a RAL includes “a loan arranged to be paid directly 

or indirectly from the proceeds of a consumer’s tax refund.” MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §14-

3801(f)(1) (West 2011). A RAL “includes a sale, assignment, or purchase of a consumer’s tax 

refund at a discount or for a fee, whether or not the consumer is required to repay the buyer or 

assignee if the Internal Revenue Service denies or reduces the consumer’s tax refund. MD. CODE 

ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3801(f)(2) (West 2011).

81. Maryland’s RAL law defines a “facilitator” as a person, other than a bank, 

savings and loan association or credit union, who, among other things, “processes, receives, or 

accepts an application or agreement” for a RAL, “services or collects on” a RAL, or “facilitates 

the making of” a RAL. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3801(d) (West 2011). Defendant is a 

facilitator as defined by Maryland’s RAL law.

82. Maryland’s RAL law prohibits “facilitators” such as Defendant from engaging in 

certain practices and requires the facilitators to disclose, in writing and orally, certain critical 

information about RALs, the finance charges and lower-cost alternatives. Most relevant to this 

class action are Maryland’s RAL law’s disclosure requirements and prohibition on the 

facilitator/tax preparer charging or imposing any fees for RALs other than fees charged by the 

creditor or bank.

83. Maryland’s RAL law requires all facilitators to disclose conspicuously on a “form 

that is separate from the application” and in large type (ranging from “14-point to 18-point”) 

specific information about the interest rate, fees and timing of the RAL, as well as alternative 

means to receive refunds from the IRS in a timely manner without exorbitant add-on charges.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 31 of 124 PageID #:183
25

See MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3804 (West 2011). These written disclosures are required 

to be separate, conspicuous, and in large type so that they are not lost amidst multiple pages of 

fine print. See id. Facilitators are also required to make similar disclosures orally to each 

consumer and to post prominently these disclosures at each office on a document measuring no 

less than sixteen by twenty inches in 14-point type. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §§ 14-3805, 14-

3803 (West 2011).

84. Maryland’s RAL law requires all facilitators to disclose on a separate sheet of 

paper in 14-point type face the annual percentage rate (APR) “using the guidelines established 

under the federal Truth in Lending Act.” MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3804(a), (b) (West 

2011). This same interest rate also must be accurately disclosed in a prominently displayed 

office posting and in individualized oral disclosures to the consumer. MD. CODE ANN. COM.

LAW §§ 14-3803(b), 14-3805(a) (West 2011); see also § 14-3806(a)(5) (“A facilitator may not 

misrepresent a material fact or condition of a refund anticipation loan or refund anticipation 

check”); § 14-3802 (facilitators may not solicit or facilitate RAL without complying with this 

subtitle).

85. In addition, Maryland’s RAL law prohibits the tax preparer, or any other entity 

other than the third-party bank or creditor, from receiving any fee related to an RAL. MD. CODE 

ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3806(a)(2) (West 2011) (Facilitators may not “[c]harge any fee to a 

consumer or require any other consideration for making or facilitating a refund anticipation loan 

or refund anticipation check other than the fee imposed by the creditor or other person that 

provides the refund anticipation loan or refund anticipation check.”). Instead, a tax preparer can 

only receive the same fees that would be charged to a consumer who did not receive a RAL or 

other tax-related financial products. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3806(b) (West 2011).

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 32 of 124 PageID #:184
26

86. A facilitator who violates any provision of Maryland’s RAL law commits an 

unfair or deceptive trade practice and is subject to the remedies provided under the Maryland 

Consumer Protection Act. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3807(a) (West 2011). Those 

remedies include attorney’s fees and costs. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 13-408(b) (West 

2011). In addition, a facilitator who willfully fails to comply with any provision of Maryland’s 

RAL law is liable to the consumer for: (a) actual and compensatory damages; (b) $1,000 

statutory damages; and (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 

14-3807(b) (West 2011).

E. MINNESOTA REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN LAWS.

87. The Minnesota statute governing RALs and tax preparers, Minn. Stat. § 

270C.445, (“Minnesota RAL laws”), focuses on the practices of tax preparers like Defendant 

who market, facilitate, and make RALs. The legislature amended the statute in 2009 to increase 

the civil damages available to plaintiffs by providing for statutory damages amounting to twice 

the sum of (i) the tax preparation fee, and (ii) all interest and fees for any RAL.

88. Under the Minnesota RAL laws, a RAL includes any “loan or any other extension 

of credit, whether provided by the tax preparer or another entity such as a financial institution, in 

anticipation of, and whose payment is secured by, a client’s federal or state income tax refund or 

both.” Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 2(g).

89. The Minnesota RAL laws define “tax preparer” as “a person providing tax 

preparation services” as defined in the statute. Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 2(h)(i). “Tax 

preparation services” include “assist[ing] with preparing or filing state or federal income tax 

returns” and “facilitat[ing] the provision of refund anticipation loans.” Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, 

subd. 2(h)(1) and (2). To “[f]acilitate” means to “offer, arrange, [or] process . . . a refund 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 33 of 124 PageID #:185
27

anticipation loan.” Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 2(d). “Person” is defined to include 

corporations such as Defendant. Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 2(e).

90. The Minnesota RAL laws prohibit “tax preparers” such as Defendant from 

engaging in certain practices. The Minnesota RAL laws also require tax preparers who facilitate 

RALs to disclose, in writing, critical information about RALs, including the finance charges and 

interest rates associated with the loans and lower cost alternatives to RALs. At issue in this case 

are the Minnesota RAL laws’ disclosure requirements and prohibition of tax preparers’ arranging 

for payment for any service in connection with a RAL other than repayment of the RAL and the 

tax preparation fees.

91. The Minnesota RAL laws require all tax preparers who facilitate RALs to 

conspicuously disclose critical information about the interest rate, fees, and timing of the RAL, 

as well as alternative means to receive refunds from the IRS in a timely manner without 

exorbitant add-on charges. Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 4(a) & 4a(2)(i)-(iv). These disclosures 

must be “provided to a client in a written notice on single sheet of paper,” and be printed in 

“capital and small font type fonts, in a minimum of 14-point type, with at least a double space 

between each statement.” Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 4(b)-(c). These written disclosures are 

required to be separate, conspicuous, and in large type so that they are not lost amidst multiple 

pages of fine print. The refund anticipation checks provision, which would encompass an ERC 

or ERD, also requires specific disclosures. Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 4b.

92. Perhaps the most critical disclosure required by the Minnesota RAL laws is the 

interest rate for any loan product. The Minnesota RAL laws require all tax preparers who 

facilitate RALs to disclose, on a document separate from the loan materials, “[t]he annual 

percentage rate (APR), based on the estimated payment period” of the loan. Minn. Stat. § 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 34 of 124 PageID #:186
28

270C.445, subd. 4a(2)(i). The Minnesota RAL laws require tax preparers who facilitate RALs to 

provide all disclosures required by the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) (15 U.S.C. § 1601 

et. seq.) and its implementing Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. Part 226). Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 

3(19). Under TILA, all “finance charges” must be included in the calculation of APR. 15 

U.S.C. § 1606. “Finance charge” includes any “charges, payable directly or indirectly by the 

person to whom credit is extended, and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an 

incident to the extension of credit.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.4(a).

93. The Minnesota RAL laws prohibit the tax preparer from inserting into any 

agreement to facilitate a RAL a provision that arranges for the “deduction from any portion of 

the refund anticipation loan . . . for . . . the collection of any debt owed to any party for any other 

good or service other than a debt owed to the facilitator for the repayment of a refund 

anticipation loan and tax preparation fees....” Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 3a(a).

94. In addition, the Minnesota RAL laws require that the tax preparer provide a 

separate written notice to the client in connection with any written agreement facilitating a RAL 

or a ERC/ERD that contains a mandatory arbitration clause. Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 

3a(b). This notice must state that arbitration is the exclusive means of dispute resolution, that the 

client has the right to opt out of arbitration within thirty days, and that the arbitration clause does 

not apply to violations of the Minnesota RAL laws. Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 3a(b)(1)-(3).

95. A tax preparer who violates any provision of the Minnesota RAL laws is liable to 

the client for (1) actual damages, (2) incidental and consequential damages, (3) statutory 

damages of twice the sum of the tax preparation fees charged to the client, (4) reasonable 

attorney fees, (5) court costs, and (6) any other equitable relief this Court considers appropriate.

Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 7(c). A tax preparer who fails to make the required disclosures in 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 35 of 124 PageID #:187
29

connection with the facilitation of a RAL, ERC, or ERD violates the prohibition on arrangements 

for the payment of fees other than repayment of the RAL or the tax preparation fees is 

additionally liable for statutory damages of twice the sum of all interest and fees for the RAL. 

Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 7(c)(3).

96. According to the Minnesota RAL laws, “[a]ny violation of [the Minnesota RAL 

laws] is an unfair, deceptive, and unlawful trade practice within the meaning of section 8.31.”

Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 7(a). Subdivision 3a of section 8.31 is the Minnesota Private 

Attorney General Act and provides a private right of action for damages and attorney’s fees for 

violations of certain laws concerning consumer protections and restraints of trade. Minn. Stat. § 

8.31, subd. 3a. The Unlawful Trade Practices Act (Minn. Stat. § 325D.09 et seq.) (“UTPA”) is 

included in section 8.31 and therefore a violation of Minnesota RAL laws also implicates the 

UTPA. Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1. Any action taken for violations of the Minnesota RAL laws 

is in the public interest. Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 7(a).

97. It is a violation of UTPA when, “in connection with the sale of merchandise at 

retail[,]” a person “misrepresent[s] the true nature of such sale.” Minn. Stat. § 325D.12(2).

UTPA defines “[s]ale of merchandise at retail” as any sale to a direct consumer. Minn. Stat. § 

325D.10(d) (excepting “(1) [a] sale for the purpose of resale or (2) a sale of substantial quantity 

of merchandise for business use only”). UTPA defines “sale” as “any sale, offer, or 

advertisement thereof or contract for the same.” Minn. Stat. § 325D.10(c). The UTPA defines 

“person” to include corporations such as Defendant. Minn. Stat. § 325D.10(a).

98. According to UTPA, “[a]ny person damaged . . . by reason of a violation of 

[UTPA] shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief . . . and for the amount of the actual 

damages.” Minn. Stat. § 325D.15.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 36 of 124 PageID #:188
30

99. The Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Minn. Stat. § 325D.43 et seq.) (the 

“UDTPA”) also governs the deceptive sales of goods or services in Minnesota. The UDTPA is 

violated when a person “represents that . . . services have . . . characteristics . . . that they do not 

have,” or “engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of 

misunderstanding.” Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1(5) & (13).

100. According to the UDTPA, “[a] person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade 

practice of another may be granted an injunction against it.” Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1.

The UDTPA further provides that “the court may award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if 

. . . (2) the party charged with a deceptive trade practice has willfully engaged in the trade 

practice knowing it to be deceptive. Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 2. The remedies provided by 

the UDTPA are additional to remedies provided by other statutes. Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 

3.

F. NEW YORK REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN LAWS.

101. Regulation of RALs in the State of New York occurs through the interplay of the 

following laws:

 N.Y. CLS Tax § 32 which governs the facilitation of RALs by tax preparers 

throughout the State of New York.

 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 372, et seq., which governs the facilitation of RALs by tax 

preparers throughout the state of New York, except in cities with population of 

one million or more (i.e., New York City).

 New York City Administrative Code § 20-739 et seq., which governs the

facilitation of RALs by tax preparers in New York City and parallels N.Y. Gen. 

Bus. Law § 372, et seq.

Therefore, N.Y. CLS Tax § 32 in tandem with New York City Administrative Code § 20-739, et 

seq., (“New York City RAL law”) governs RALs in the New York City area. In all other parts 

of the state, N.Y. CLS Tax § 32 and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 372 (“New York State RAL law”) 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 37 of 124 PageID #:189
31

govern. All of these laws focus on the practices of tax preparers like Defendant who market, 

facilitate and make RALs.

102. Under New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law, a RAL includes 

any “loan that is secured by or that the creditor arranges to be repaid directly or indirectly from 

the proceeds of an income tax refund or tax credits.” N.Y. CLS Gen. Bus. § 371(d); N.Y. CLS 

Tax § 32(a)(11). A RAL “includes any sale, assignment, or purchase of tax refund at a discount 

or for a fee, whether or not the amount is required to be repaid to the buyer or assignee if the 

internal revenue service or the department denies or reduces the amount of the tax refund.” Id.

103. New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law define a “facilitator” as a 

person who, among other things, “processes, receives or accepts an application or agreement” for 

a RAL, “serves or collects upon” a RAL, or “facilitates the making of” a RAL. N.Y. CLS Gen. 

Bus. § 371(a); N.Y. CLS Tax § 32(a)(6). Defendant is a facilitator as defined by New York State 

RAL law and New York City RAL law.

104. New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law prohibit facilitators such 

as Defendant from engaging in certain practices and require the facilitators/tax preparers to 

disclose, in writing and orally, certain critical information about RALs, including the finance 

charges and lower-cost alternatives. Most relevant to this class action are disclosure 

requirements of New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law, and the prohibition 

placed on the facilitator from charging or imposing any fees for RALs other than fees charged by 

the creditor or bank, imposed by New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law.

105. New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law each require facilitators 

to disclose conspicuously and in large type (“at least 14-point”) specific information about the 

interest rate, fees and timing of the RAL, as well as alternative means to receive refunds from the 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 38 of 124 PageID #:190
32

IRS in a timely manner without exorbitant add-on charges. N.Y. CLS Gen. Bus. § 372(e)(2); 

New York City Administrative Code § 20-741.1. These written disclosures are required to be 

separate, conspicuous, in large type and signed by the taxpayer so that they are not lost amidst 

multiple pages of fine print. Id. New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law also 

require facilitators to make very similar, but not identical, oral disclosures in anticipation of 

providing a taxpayer with a RAL. N.Y. CLS Gen. Bus. § 372(f); New York City Administrative 

Code § 20-741.1.

106. Further, New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law require 

facilitators to provide each taxpayer with an additional flyer, separate from any other tax 

preparation materials or the above-mentioned disclosure form, titled “Consumer Bill of Rights 

Regarding Tax Preparers” (“Consumer Bill of Rights”). NY CLS Gen Bus § 372(d); New York 

City Administrative Code § 20-740.1. The document is generated by the New York Department 

of Taxation and Finance and must be given to the taxpayer prior to any discussion about tax 

preparation services. Id. Among other items of information provided on the form, the taxpayer 

is instructed that, if he or she enters into an RAL, the tax preparer must provide, on a sheet of 

paper separate from any other RAL materials, “the interest rate [of the RAL], expressed as the 

estimated annual percentage rate (APR) based on the amount of time the loan will be 

outstanding.” NY Dept. of Tax’n. and Fin., Consumer Bill of Rights Regarding Tax Preparers, 2 

(http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/downloads/pdf/consumerbillofrights.pdf); See 20 NYCRR § 

2398.2. Thus, prior to the consummation of any RAL, New York State RAL law and New York 

City RAL law require facilitators to provide taxpayers with not one, but two written disclosures, 

on two separate sheets of paper, detailing an accurate calculation of the APR and other fees 

associated with RALs, followed up by oral disclosures covering the same information.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 39 of 124 PageID #:191
33

107. In addition, New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law prohibit the 

facilitator, or any other entity other than the third-party bank or creditor, from receiving any fee 

related to a RAL. N.Y. CLS Tax § 32(f)(1)(A) (A facilitator shall not “charge or impose any fee, 

charge or other consideration in the making or facilitating of a refund anticipation loan or refund 

anticipation check apart from the fee charged by the creditor or bank that provided the loan or 

check.”).

108. New York State RAL law and New York City RAL law also prohibit the 

facilitator from incorporating clauses into contracts with the taxpayer that waive the right to 

“relief on a class-wide basis.” N.Y. CLS Tax § 32(f)(1)(D).

G. NORTH CAROLINA REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN ACT.

109. North Carolina’s Refund Anticipation Loan Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-245, et seq. 

(“NC RALA”) focuses on the practices of tax preparers like Defendant who market, facilitate, 

and make RALs.

110. Under NC RALA, a RAL includes any loan “arrange[d] to be repaid directly from 

the proceeds of the debtor’s income tax refund.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-246(8). A RAL fee 

includes “the charges, fees, or other consideration charged or imposed by the creditor or 

facilitator for the making of a refund anticipation loan.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-246(9).

111. NC RALA defines a “facilitator” as a person who, among other things, 

“processes, receives, or accepts for delivery an application” for a RAL, “or in any other manner 

facilitates the making of a refund anticipation loan.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-246(6). Defendant is 

a facilitator as defined by NC RALA.

112. NC RALA prohibits “facilitators” such as Defendant from engaging in certain 

practices and requires the facilitators to disclose, in writing, certain critical information about 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 40 of 124 PageID #:192
34

RALs including the finance charges and lower-cost alternatives. Most relevant to this class 

action are NC RALA’s disclosure requirements.

113. NC RALA requires all facilitators to disclose conspicuously, on a “form separate

from the application” specific information about the interest rate, fees and timing of the RAL, as 

well as alternative means to receive refunds from the IRS in a timely manner without exorbitant 

add-on charges. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-249(d) (emphasis added). These written disclosures are 

required to be separate and conspicuous, so that they are not lost amidst multiple pages of fine 

print.

114. In addition to the separate disclosures given to each consumer, facilitators are 

required to prominently display similar disclosures at each office where RALs are facilitated. 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-249(c).

115. Perhaps the most critical disclosure required by NC RALA is the interest rate for 

any loan product. NC RALA requires all facilitators to disclose, on a document separate from 

the loan application, “[e]xamples of the annual percentage rates, as defined by the Truth in 

Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1607 and 12 C.F.R. Section 226.22,” for various RALs ranging 

between $500.00 and $3,000.00. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-249(d)(6). This same interest rate also 

must be accurately disclosed in the prominently displayed office posting. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-

249(c); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-250(1) (A facilitator shall neither misrepresent “a material 

factor or condition of a refund anticipation loan.”).

116. A facilitator who makes misrepresentations to the consumer, in violation of N.C. 

Gen. Stat. § 53-250, is liable directly to the consumer for (a) three times the amount of the RAL 

fee, (b) the cost of any additional unauthorized charges or fees, and (c) reasonable attorney’s fees 

and costs of prosecution. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-251(c).

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 41 of 124 PageID #:193
35

H. WISCONSIN REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN ACT.

117. The Wisconsin statute governing RALs and tax preparers, Wis. Stat. §422.310 

(“Wisconsin RAL laws”) was enacted in 1993 and focuses on the practices of tax preparers like 

Defendant who market, facilitate, and make RALs. The Wisconsin legislature expressly enacted 

the Wisconsin Consumer Act, of which the Wisconsin RAL laws are a part, “to protect 

customers against unfair, deceptive, false, misleading and unconscionable practices by 

merchants.” Wis. Stat. §421.102(2)(b).

118. Under Wisconsin RAL laws, a RAL is an “agreement under which a creditor 

arranges to be repaid for a loan directly from the proceeds of a customer’s income tax refund.” 

Wis. Stat. §421.301(37m). A RAL fee includes “charges, fees or other consideration imposed by 

a creditor for making a refund anticipation loan.” Wis. Stat. §421.301(37r).

119. Wisconsin RAL laws define a “creditor” as “a merchant who regularly engages in 

consumer credit transactions or in arranging for the extension of consumer credit by or procuring 

consumer credit from third persons.” Wis. Stat. §421.301(16). Defendant is a creditor as 

defined by Wisconsin law.

120. Wisconsin RAL laws prohibit “creditors” such as Defendant from engaging in 

certain practices and require such creditors to disclose in writing certain critical information 

about RALs, the finance charges and lower-cost alternatives. Most relevant to this class action 

are Wisconsin RAL laws’ disclosure requirements and prohibition on the tax preparer charging 

or imposing any fees for RALs other than fees charged by the creditor or bank.

121. Wisconsin RAL laws require all tax preparers to disclose specific information 

about the interest rate, fees and timing of the RAL, as well as alternative means to receive 

refunds from the IRS in a timely manner. Wis. Stat. §422.310(1)(e)-(h).

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 42 of 124 PageID #:194
36

122. Perhaps the most critical disclosure required by Wisconsin RAL laws is the 

interest rate for any loan product. Wisconsin RAL laws require all creditors to disclose the 

“estimated annual percentage rate, based on the size of the refund anticipation loan, the refund 

anticipation loan fees and the anticipated maturity date of the refund anticipation loan.” Wis. 

Stat. §422.310(1)(h).

123. In addition, Wisconsin RAL laws prohibit creditors from receiving any fee related 

to a RAL. Wis. Stat. §422.310(2) (“A creditor may not impose a different fee or charge for 

electronically filing an income tax return on a customer who obtains a refund anticipation loan 

than the creditor imposes on a customer who does not obtain a refund anticipation loan.”).

124. A creditor who violates any provision of the Wisconsin RAL laws also violates 

the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis. Stat. §421.101 et seq., and a consumer has all rights and 

remedies provided under the Wisconsin Consumer Act for each Wisconsin RAL law violation. 

Wis. Stat. §422.310(3). In addition, a creditor who violates any provision of the Wisconsin RAL 

laws is “liable to the customer in an amount equal to the greater of: (1) Twice the amount of the 

finance charge in connection with the transaction, except that the liability under this subsection 

shall not be less than 100 nor greater than 1,000; or (2) The actual damages, including any 

incidental and consequential damages, sustained by the customer by reason of the violation.” 

Wis. Stat. §425.304.

V. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

125. TILA, and its implementing Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 226, establish 

requirements for accurate disclosure of interest rates and finance charges when creditors provide 

loans and extensions of credit to consumers.

126. Defendant is a creditor, in that Defendant, in conjunction with its banking 

partners, charges fees as a condition for obtaining the extension of credit for tax preparation fees 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 43 of 124 PageID #:195
37

(all loan products) and any advanced funds (Republic RAL) and at least a portion, if not all, of 

each consumer’s debt is payable to Defendant.

127. Plaintiff and Class Members are consumers for purposes of TILA.

128. Violations of TILA are determined on an objective standard, based on the 

representations in the relevant disclosure documents, with no necessity to establish the subjective 

misunderstanding or reliance of particular consumers.

129. TILA defines a finance charge as “... the finance charge in connection with any 

consumer credit transaction shall be determined as the sum of all charges, payable directly or 

indirectly by the person to whom the credit is extended, and imposed directly or indirectly by the 

creditor as an incident to the extension of credit.” 15 U.S.C. §1605(a). A “finance charge” is 

“the cost of consumer credit as a dollar amount,” and includes “any charge payable directly or 

indirectly by the consumer and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to or 

a condition of the extension of credit.” 12 C.F.R. §226.4(a). Finance charges within the 

meaning of TILA include fees and amounts charged by third parties where the contracting party 

requires the use of a third party or where the creditor retains a portion of the third-party charge.

130. Consumers cannot obtain advanced funds or defer payment of tax preparation 

services through Defendant’s RAL products without paying the Account Handling Fee or the 

Tax Refund Administration Fee, among other loan fees.

131. The Account Handling Fee charged to recipients of SBBT RALs, RAL Advances, 

and Refund Transfers and the Tax Refund Administration Fee charged to recipients of ERCs, 

ERDs, and Republic RALs constitutes a “finance charge” within the meaning of TILA, 15 

U.S.C. § 1605, and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.4.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 44 of 124 PageID #:196
38

132. Defendant failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and the Class an interest rate calculated 

utilizing the guidelines established under TILA by failing to consider the Account Handling Fee 

and the Tax Refund Administration Fee a finance charge.

133. For each Refund Transfer and ERC/ERD customer, Defendant failed to disclose 

any interest rate or finance charge, thus violating the written disclosure requirements of TILA.

134. For each SBBT RAL, RAL Advance and Republic RAL customer, Defendant 

failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, because it did not include the Account Handling 

Fee or the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge, which violates the 

written disclosure requirements of TILA.

VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS.

A. ARKANSAS.

ZANETA HOUSTON

135. Zaneta Houston has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2010 tax year.

In tax year 2010, Ms. Houston was eligible for and received the EITC. Defendant prepared tax 

returns for Ms. Houston and also facilitated a RAL at one of Defendant’s offices in Arkansas. 

Specifically, Defendant facilitated an ERC for Ms. Houston in the 2010 tax year.

136. Defendant charged Ms. Houston $340 for tax preparation in the 2010 tax year. 

Ms. Houston did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred payment to be taken out 

of her tax refund.

137. In tax year 2010, Defendant also charged Ms. Houston a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited her tax 

refund. After the IRS deposited Ms. Houston’s tax refund into her Deposit Account, Defendant 

would then issue a check to Ms. Houston for her refund minus all fees and charges due to 

Defendant and Republic Bank.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 45 of 124 PageID #:197
39

138. Therefore, Ms. Houston paid Defendant $29.95 in finance charges for a loan to 

defer payment of her tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Ms. Houston with any 

disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for her ERC in violation of ARALA (Ark. 

Code Ann. §§ 4-116-104; 4-116-105(a); 4-116-103(1) & (2) and 4-116-107(5)).

139. Defendant received a portion of the loan fees and finance charges on Ms. 

Houston’s ERC in violation of Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-116-107(2) and 4-116-103(1) & (2).

DAPHNE SHORTER

140. Daphne Shorter has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2010 tax year.

In tax year 2010, Ms. Shorter was eligible for and received the EITC. Defendant prepared tax 

returns for Ms. Shorter and also facilitated a RAL at Defendant’s office in Jacksonville, 

Arkansas. Specifically, Defendant facilitated a Republic RAL and an ERD for Ms. Shorter in the 

2010 tax year.

141. Defendant charged Ms. Shorter $279 for tax preparation in the 2010 tax year. Ms. 

Shorter did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred payment to be taken out of her 

tax refund.

142. Additionally, Defendant charged Ms. Shorter what it termed a “finance charge” of 

$61.22 in the 2010 tax year.

143. In tax year 2010, Defendant also charged Ms. Shorter a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited her tax 

refund. After the IRS deposited Ms. Shorter’s tax refund into her Deposit Account, Defendant 

would then make a deposit into Ms. Shorter’s personal bank account for her refund minus all 

fees and charges due to Defendant and Republic Bank.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 46 of 124 PageID #:198
40

144. The actual finance charge for the Republic RAL, when properly calculated to 

include the Tax Refund Administration Fee in accordance with TILA, RALA, and ADTPA, was 

$91.17, and the APR, properly calculated, was significantly higher than the 124.14% figure 

represented by Defendant.

145. Therefore, Ms. Shorter paid Defendant $29.95 in additional finance charges for a 

loan to defer payment of her tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Ms. Shorter with 

any disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for her ERD and provided inaccurate 

disclosures of APR and finance charges related to the Republic RAL in violation of ARALA 

(Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-116-104; 4-116-105(a); 4-116-103(1) & (2) and 4-116-107(5)).

146. Defendant received a portion of the loan fees and finance charges on Ms. 

Shorter’s ERD and Republic RAL in violation of Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-116-107(2) and 4-116-

103(1) & (2).

B. CALIFORNIA.

CHARLES MADUBUIKE

147. Charles Madubuike has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2009 tax 

year. Defendant prepared tax returns for Mr. Madubuike and also facilitated a RAL at 

Defendant’s office. Specifically, Defendant facilitated an ERC for Mr. Madubuike in the 2009 

and 2010 tax years. 

148. Defendant charged Mr. Madubuike $381 and $404 for tax preparation in the

respective 2009 and 2010 tax years. Mr. Madubuike did not pay these fees at the time of service, 

but deferred payment to be taken out of his tax refund. 

149. In tax years 2009 and 2010, Defendant also charged Mr. Madubuike a “Tax 

Refund Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited 

his tax refund. After the IRS deposited Mr. Madubuike’s tax refund into his Deposit Account, 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 47 of 124 PageID #:199
41

Defendant would then issue a check to Mr. Madubuike for his refund minus all fees and charges 

due to Defendant and Republic Bank.

150. Therefore, Mr. Madubuike paid Defendant $29.95 in finance charges for a loan to 

defer payment of his tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Mr. Madubuike with any 

disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for his ERCs in violation of California RAL 

laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§22253.1(b)-(d).

GEORGE WASHINGTON, JR. AND MARGARET WASHINGTON

151. George and Margaret Washington have been customers of Defendant since at 

least the 2010 tax year. Defendant prepared tax returns for Mr. and Mrs. Washington and also 

facilitated a RAL at Defendant’s office. Specifically, Defendant facilitated an ERD for Mr. and 

Mrs. Washington in the 2010 tax year.

152. Defendant charged Mr. and Mrs. Washington $336 for tax preparation in the 2010 

tax year. Mr. and Mrs. Washington did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred 

payment to be taken out of their tax refund.

153. In tax year 2010, Defendant also charged Mr. and Mrs. Washington a “Tax 

Refund Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited 

their tax refund. After the IRS deposited Mr. and Mrs. Washington’s tax refund into their

Deposit Account, Defendant would then make a deposit into Mr. and Mrs. Washington’s 

personal bank account for their refund minus all fees and charges due to Defendant and Republic 

Bank.

154. Therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Washington paid Defendant $29.95 in finance charges 

for a loan to defer payment of their tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Mr. and Mrs. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 48 of 124 PageID #:200
42

Washington with any disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for their ERD in 

violation of California RAL laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§22253.1(b)-(d).

C. FLORIDA.

PAMELA PATTERSON

155. Pamela Patterson has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2008 tax 

year. In tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010, Ms. Patterson was eligible for and received the EITC. 

Defendant prepared tax returns for Ms. Patterson and also facilitated a RAL at one of 

Defendant’s offices. Specifically, Defendant facilitated an ERC for Ms. Patterson in the 2010 

tax year.

156. Defendant charged Ms. Patterson $132, $341, and $371 for tax preparation in the 

respective 2008, 2009 and 2010 tax years. Ms. Patterson did not pay these fees at the time of 

service, but deferred payment to be taken out of her tax refund.

157. In tax year 2010, Defendant also charged Ms. Patterson a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited her tax 

refund. After the IRS deposited Ms. Patterson’s tax refund into her Deposit Account, Defendant 

would then issue a check to Ms. Patterson for her refund minus all fees and charges due to 

Defendant and Republic Bank.

158. Therefore, Ms. Patterson paid Defendant $29.95 in finance charges for a loan to 

defer payment of her tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Ms. Patterson with any 

disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for her ERC.

D. ILLINOIS.

TIMOTHY ROWDEN

159. Timothy Rowden has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2008 tax 

year. Defendant prepared tax returns for Mr. Rowden and also facilitated a RAL at one of 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 49 of 124 PageID #:201
43

Defendant’s offices. Specifically, Defendant facilitated an ERC and ERD for Mr. Rowden in the 

respective 2009 and 2010 tax years.

160. Defendant charged Mr. Rowden $176 and $163 for tax preparation in the 

respective 2009 and 2010 tax years. Mr. Rowden did not pay these fees at the time of service, 

but deferred payment to be taken out of his tax refund.

161. In tax years 2009 and 2010, Defendant also charged Mr. Rowden a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited his tax 

refund. In tax year 2009, after the IRS deposited Mr. Rowden’s tax refund into his Deposit 

Account, Defendant then issued a check to Mr. Rowden for his refund minus all fees and charges 

due to Defendant and Republic Bank. In tax year 2010, after the IRS deposited Mr. Rowden’s 

tax refund into his Deposit Account, Defendant then made a deposit into Mr. Rowden’s personal 

bank account for his refund minus all fees and charges due to Defendant and Republic Bank.

162. Therefore, Mr. Rowden paid Defendant $29.95 in finance charges for a loan to 

defer payment of his tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Mr. Rowden with any 

disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for his ERC and ERD in violation of

TRALDA, 815 ILCS 177/10, IUDTPA, 815 ILCS510/1, et seq., and ICFA, 815 ILCS 505/1, et 

seq.

E. MARYLAND.

KEONNA BROWN

163. Keonna Brown has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2010 tax year. 

Defendant prepared tax returns for Ms. Brown and also facilitated a RAL at Defendant’s office.

Specifically, Defendant facilitated a Republic RAL and an ERC for Ms. Brown in the 2010 tax 

year. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 50 of 124 PageID #:202
44

164. Defendant charged Ms. Brown $354 for tax preparation in the 2010 tax year. Ms. 

Brown did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred payment to be taken out of her 

tax refund. 

165. Additionally, Defendant charged Ms. Brown what it termed a “finance charge” of 

$61.22 in the 2010 tax year.

166. In tax year 2010, Defendant also charged Ms. Brown a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited her tax 

refund. After the IRS deposited Ms. Brown’s tax refund into her Deposit Account, Defendant 

would then issue a check for Ms. Brown’s refund minus all fees and charges due to Defendant 

and Republic Bank.

167. The actual finance charge for the Republic RAL, when properly calculated to 

include the Tax Refund Administration Fee in accordance with TILA, Maryland RAL law, and 

the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, was $91.17, and the APR, properly calculated, was 

significantly higher than the 124.14% figure represented by Defendant.

168. Therefore, Ms. Brown paid Defendant $29.95 in additional finance charges for a 

loan to defer payment of her tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Ms. Brown with 

any disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for her ERC and provided inaccurate 

disclosures of APR and finance charges related to the Republic RAL in violation of Maryland 

RAL law, the TILA, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

169. Defendant received a portion of the loan fees and finance charges on Ms. Brown’s 

ERC and Republic RAL in violation of Maryland RAL law, the TILA, and the Maryland 

Consumer Protection Act.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 51 of 124 PageID #:203
45

F. MINNESOTA.

HEATHER REYES

170. Heather Reyes has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2009 tax year. 

In the tax years 2009 through 2011, Ms. Reyes was eligible for and received the EITC each year.

Each year, Defendant prepared tax returns for Ms. Reyes and also facilitated RALs at 

Defendant’s office. Specifically, Defendant facilitated a Republic RAL and an ERD for Ms. 

Reyes in tax year 2010, and a Republic RAL and ERC for Ms. Reyes in tax year 2011.

171. Defendant charged Ms. Reyes the following amounts for tax preparation in each 

of the respective tax years 2009 through 2011: $227, $182, and $202. In each year, Ms. Reyes 

did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred payment to be taken out of her tax 

refund.

172. In each of the tax years 2009 through 2011, Defendant charged Ms. Reyes a “Tax 

Refund Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited 

her tax refund. After the IRS deposited Ms. Reyes’s tax refund into her Refund Account, 

Defendant would then make a deposit into Ms. Reyes’s personal bank account or issue her a 

check for her refund minus all fees and charges due to Defendant and Republic Bank.

173. In tax years 2010 and 2011, Ms. Reyes purchased a Republic RAL. For each of 

those tax years, Defendant also charged Ms. Reyes what it termed a “finance charge” of $61.22.

174. Defendant failed to provide Ms. Reyes the disclosures required under the 

Minnesota RAL laws. In the tax year 2009, Defendant failed to provide any disclosure to Ms. 

Reyes regarding the APR or finance charges regarding this RAL. In tax years 2010 and 2011, 

Defendant failed to accurately disclose the actual finance charges, which, when properly 

calculated in accordance with TILA, the Minnesota RAL laws, the UTPA, and the UDTPA, 

include the Tax Refund Administration Fee. Ms. Reyes was actually charged $91.17 in finance 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 52 of 124 PageID #:204
46

charges in each year, and the respective APRs for each year were significantly higher than the 

124.14% figures represented by Defendant in those years. Furthermore, in the tax year 2011, 

Defendant failed to sign, and also failed to obtain Ms. Reyes’s signature on the statutorily 

required RAL notice.

175. Defendant failed to provide accurate disclosures to Ms. Reyes regarding the APR 

or finance charge for the RALs it facilitated in tax years 2009 through 2011, in violation of the 

Minnesota RAL laws, Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd 3(19) &, subd 4a; TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1606; 

the UTPA, Minn. Stat. § 325D.12(2); and the UDTPA, Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd 1(5) & (13).

176. Defendant also failed to provide a separate written notice stating that arbitration 

was the exclusive means of dispute resolution, that Ms. Reyes had the right to opt out of 

arbitration within thirty days, and that the arbitration clause would not apply to violations of the 

Minnesota RAL laws, notwithstanding that the RAL facilitation agreement signed by Ms. Reyes 

contained a mandatory arbitration clause, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd 3a(b).

G. NEW YORK.

RONALD TOPPING

177. Ronald Topping has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2011 tax 

year. In that tax year, Mr. Topping was eligible for and received the EITC. Defendant prepared 

tax returns for Mr. Topping and also facilitated a RAL at one of Defendant’s offices.

Specifically, Defendant facilitated an ERC and Republic RAL for Mr. Topping in the 2011 tax 

year.

178. Defendant charged Mr. Topping $350 for tax preparation in the 2011 tax year. 

Mr. Topping did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred payment to be taken out of 

his tax refund.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 53 of 124 PageID #:205
47

179. In tax year 2011, Defendant also charged Mr. Topping a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited his tax 

refund. In tax year 2011, after the IRS deposited Mr. Topping’s tax refund into his Deposit 

Account, Defendant then issued a check to Mr. Topping for his refund minus all fees and charges 

due to Defendant and Republic Bank.

180. In tax year 2011, Mr. Topping purchased a Republic RAL. For that tax year, 

Defendant also charged Mr. Topping what it termed a “finance charge” of $61.22.

181. In the 2011 tax year, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the actual finance 

charges, which, when properly calculated in accordance with TILA, the New York State RAL 

law, and the New York City RAL law, include the Tax Refund Administration Fee. Mr. Topping

was actually charged $91.17 in finance charges in tax year 2011, and the APR for that year was

significantly higher than the 124.14% figure represented by Defendant in that year.

182. Therefore, Mr. Topping paid Defendant $29.95 in additional finance charges for a 

loan to defer payment of his tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Mr. Topping with 

any disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for his ERC and provided inaccurate 

disclosures for his Republic RAL in violation of New York City RAL laws; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 

§372, et seq.; N.Y. CLS Tax §32; and New York City Administration Code §20-739, et seq.

183. Further, Defendant received a portion of the loan fees and finance charges on Mr. 

Topping’s ERC and Republic RAL in violation of New York State RAL law and New York City 

RAL law. N.Y.CLS §32(f)(1)(A).

KEVIN AND YOLANDA GOODWIN

184. Kevin and Yolanda Goodwin have been customers of Defendant since at least the 

2009 tax year. Defendant prepared tax returns for Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin and also facilitated a 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 54 of 124 PageID #:206
48

RAL at one of Defendant’s offices. Specifically, Defendant facilitated a Republic RAL in the 

2009 and 2010 tax years, as well as an ERC in the 2011 tax year.

185. Defendant charged Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin $416 and $402 for tax preparation in 

the respective 2009 and 2011 tax years. Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin did not pay these fees at the time 

of service, but deferred payment to be taken out of their tax refund.

186. In tax years 2009 and 2011, Defendant also charged Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin a 

“Tax Refund Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS 

deposited their tax refund. In tax year 2011, after the IRS deposited Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin’s tax 

refund into their Deposit Account, Defendant then issued a check to Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin for 

their refund minus all fees and charges due to Defendant and Republic Bank.

187. In tax years 2009 and 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin purchased a Republic RAL. 

For those tax years, Defendant also charged Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin what it termed a “finance 

charge” of $40.51 and $61.22 respectively.

188. In the 2009 and 2010 tax years, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the actual 

finance charges, which, when properly calculated in accordance with TILA, the New York State 

RAL law, and the New York City RAL law, include the Tax Refund Administration Fee. Mr. 

and Mrs. Goodwin were actually charged $70.46 and $91.17, respectively, in finance charges, 

and the APR for tax year 2010 was significantly higher than the 124.14% figure represented by 

Defendant in that year.

189. Therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin paid Defendant $29.95 in additional finance 

charges for a loan to defer payment of their tax preparation fees in the 2009 and 2010 tax years. 

Defendant did not provide Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin with any disclosures regarding the APR or 

finance charges for their ERC in tax year 2011 and provided inaccurate disclosures for their

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 55 of 124 PageID #:207
49

Republic RALs in tax years 2009 and 2010 in violation of New York City RAL laws, N.Y. Gen. 

Bus. Law §372, et seq.; N.Y. CLS Tax §32; and New York City Administration Code §20-739,

et seq.

190. Further, Defendant received a portion of the loan fees and finance charges on Mr. 

and Mrs. Goodwin’s ERC and Republic RALs in violation of New York State RAL law and 

New York City RAL law. N.Y.CLS §32(f)(1)(A).

H. NORTH CAROLINA.

DOUGLAS GLOVER

191. Douglas Glover has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2008 tax year.

Defendant prepared tax returns for Mr. Glover and also facilitated a RAL at one of Defendant’s 

offices. Specifically, Defendant facilitated a Santa Barbara Bank & Trust RAL (“SBBT RAL”)

for Mr. Glover in the 2008 tax year, as well as a Republic RAL in the 2009 tax year.

192. Defendant charged Mr. Glover $144 and $204 for tax preparation in the 

respective 2008 and 2009 tax years. Mr. Glover did not pay these fees at the time of service, but 

deferred payment to be taken out of his tax refund.

193. In tax year 2008, Mr. Glover purchased a SBBT RAL. Defendant charged Mr. 

Glover an “Account Handling fee” of $30.95 to set up a Temporary Deposit Account into which 

the IRS deposited his tax refund. Additionally, Defendant also charged Mr. Glover what it 

termed a “finance charge” of $24.15. In tax year 2008, after the IRS deposited Mr. Glover’s tax 

refund into his Temporary Deposit Account, Defendant then issued a check to Mr. Glover for his 

refund minus all fees and charges due to Defendant and Santa Barbara Bank and Trust.

194. In the 2008 tax year, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the actual finance 

charges, which, when properly calculated in accordance with TILA, the California RAL laws, 

and California’s consumer protection laws includes the Tax Refund Administration Fee. Mr. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 56 of 124 PageID #:208
50

Glover was actually charged $55.10 in finance charges in tax year 2008, and the APR for that 

year was significantly higher than the 85.08% figure represented by Defendant in that year.

195. Similarly, in tax year 2009, Mr. Glover purchased a Republic RAL. Defendant 

charged Mr. Glover a “Tax Refund Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account 

into which the IRS deposited his tax refund. Additionally, Defendant also charged Mr. Glover

what it termed a “finance charge” of $5.92. In tax year 2009, after the IRS deposited Mr. 

Glover’s tax refund into his Deposit Account, Defendant then issued a check to Mr. Glover for 

his refund minus all fees and charges due to Defendant and Republic Bank.

196. In the 2009 tax year, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the actual finance 

charges, which, when properly calculated in accordance with TILA, the North Carolina RAL 

law, and the North Carolina consumer protection laws, includes the Tax Refund Administration 

Fee. Mr. Glover was actually charged $35.87 in finance charges in tax year 2009, and the APR 

for that year was significantly higher than the 23.91% figure represented by Defendant in that 

year.

197. Therefore, Mr. Glover paid Defendant $30.95 and $29.95 in additional finance 

charges for a loan to defer payment of his tax preparation fees in the respective 2008 and 2009 

tax years. Defendant did not provide Mr. Glover accurate disclosures for his SBBT RAL and

Republic RAL in violation of California RAL laws, as well as North Carolina RAL laws, N.C. 

Gen. Stat. §53-249.

SHAMIRA JONES

198. Shamira Jones has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2009 tax year.

Defendant prepared tax returns for Ms. Jones and also facilitated a RAL at one of Defendant’s 

offices. Specifically, Defendant facilitated a Republic RAL for Ms. Jones in the 2009 tax year.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 57 of 124 PageID #:209
51

199. Defendant charged Ms. Jones $285 for tax preparation in the 2009 tax year. Ms. 

Jones did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred payment to be taken out of her

tax refund.

200. In tax year 2009, Defendant also charged Ms. Jones a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited her tax 

refund. After the IRS deposited Ms. Jones’s tax refund into her Deposit Account, Defendant 

then distributed Ms. Jones’s refund to her minus all fees and charges due to Defendant and 

Republic Bank.

201. In tax year 2009, Ms. Jones purchased a Republic RAL. For that tax year, 

Defendant also charged Ms. Jones what it termed a “finance charge” of $8.34.

202. Defendant failed to accurately disclose the actual finance charges, which, when 

properly calculated in accordance with TILA, the North Carolina RAL law, and North Carolina’s 

consumer protection law, include the Tax Refund Administration Fee. Ms. Jones was actually 

charged $38.29 in finance charges in tax year 2009, and the APR for that year was significantly 

higher than the 23.92% figure represented by Defendant in that year.

203. Therefore, Ms. Jones paid Defendant $29.95 in additional finance charges for a 

loan to defer payment of her tax preparation fees. Defendant provided inaccurate disclosures for 

Ms. Jones’s Republic RAL in violation of North Carolina RAL laws, N.C. Gen. Stat. §53-249.

WILLIAM REYNOLDS

204. William Reynolds has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2009 tax 

year. In that tax year, Mr. Reynolds was eligible for and received the EITC. Defendant prepared 

tax returns for Mr. Reynolds and also facilitated a RAL at one of Defendant’s offices.

Specifically, Defendant facilitated an ERC for Mr. Reynolds in the 2009 tax year.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 58 of 124 PageID #:210
52

205. Defendant charged Mr. Reynolds $300 for tax preparation in the 2009 tax year. 

Mr. Reynolds did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred payment to be taken out 

of his tax refund.

206. In tax year 2009, Defendant also charged Mr. Reynolds a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited his tax 

refund. After the IRS deposited Mr. Reynolds’s tax refund into his Deposit Account, Defendant 

then issued an electronic check to Mr. Reynolds for his refund minus all fees and charges due to 

Defendant and Republic Bank.

207. Defendant failed to disclose the finance charge, which, when properly calculated 

in accordance with TILA, the North Carolina RAL law, and North Carolina consumer protection

law, includes the Tax Refund Administration Fee. Mr. Reynolds was actually charged $38.29 in 

finance charges in tax year 2009, and the APR for that year was significantly higher than the 

23.92% figure represented by Defendant in that year.

208. Therefore, Mr. Reynolds paid Defendant $29.95 in finance charges for a loan to 

defer payment of his tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provided Mr. Reynolds with any 

disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for his ERC in violation of North Carolina 

RAL laws, N.C. Gen. Stat. §53-249.

I. WISCONSIN.

TERRANCE PATTERSON

209. Terrance Patterson has been a customer of Defendant since at least the 2010 tax 

year. Defendant prepared tax returns for Mr. Patterson and also facilitated a RAL at one of 

Defendant’s offices. Specifically, Defendant facilitated an ERD for Mr. Patterson in the 2010 tax 

year.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 59 of 124 PageID #:211
53

210. Defendant charged Mr. Patterson $327 for tax preparation in the 2010 tax year.

Mr. Patterson did not pay these fees at the time of service, but deferred payment to be taken out 

of his tax refund.

211. In tax year 2010, Defendant also charged Mr. Patterson a “Tax Refund 

Administration Fee” of $29.95 to set up a Deposit Account into which the IRS deposited his tax 

refund. After the IRS deposited Mr. Patterson’s tax refund into his Deposit Account, Defendant 

then made a deposit into Mr. Patterson’s personal bank account for his refund minus all fees and 

charges due to Defendant and Republic Bank.

212. Therefore, Mr. Patterson paid Defendant $29.95 in finance charges for a loan to 

defer payment of his tax preparation fees. Defendant did not provide Mr. Patterson with any 

disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges for his ERD in violation of Wisconsin RAL 

laws (§421.101, Wis. Stats., et. Seq.)

213. Defendant received a portion of the loan fees and finance charges on Mr. 

Patterson’s ERD in violation of §422.310(2), Wis. Stats.

VII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS.

A. CLASS DEFINITION.

214. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs seek 

certification of the following Classes (or alternative Classes) defined as follows:

NATIONAL CLASS (SANTA BARBARA BANK & TRUST PERIOD)

215. The National Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in the 

United States who after January 18, 2008 received an SBBT RAL Product facilitated by 

Defendant, and Defendant’s tax preparation fees were deducted from the Temporary Deposit 

Account established for the RAL Product.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 60 of 124 PageID #:212
54

216. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

217. Plaintiff Douglas Glover is an adequate class representative for the National 

Class.

ARKANSAS CLASS

218. The Arkansas Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in the 

State of Arkansas who after December 2, 2006 (a) received an ERC or ERD facilitated by 

Defendant and Defendant’s tax preparation fees were deducted from the Deposit Account

established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) received a Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

219. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

220. Plaintiffs Zaneta Houston and Daphne Shorter are adequate class representatives 

for the Arkansas Class.

CALIFORNIA CLASS

221. The California Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in the 

State of California who after November 17, 2007 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check 

(“ERC”) or Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 61 of 124 PageID #:213
55

preparation fees were deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) 

received a Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

222. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

223. Plaintiffs Charles Madubuike, George Washington, Jr. and Margaret Washington

are adequate class representatives for the California Class.

FLORIDA CLASS

224. The Florida Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in the State 

of Florida who after November 17, 2007 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check (“ERC”) or 

Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax preparation 

fees were deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) received a 

Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

225. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

226. Plaintiff Pamela Patterson is an adequate class representative for the Florida 

Class.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 62 of 124 PageID #:214
56

ILLINOIS CLASS

227. The Illinois Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in the State 

of Illinois who after November 17, 2006 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check (“ERC”) or 

Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax preparation 

fees were deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) received a 

Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

228. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

229. Plaintiff Timothy Rowden is an adequate class representative for the Illinois 

Class.

MARYLAND CLASS

230. The Maryland Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in the 

State of Maryland who after January 3, 2009 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check (“ERC”) 

or Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax preparation 

fees were deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) received a 

Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

231. Specifically excluded from the Class are: all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; all 

persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their Class 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 63 of 124 PageID #:215
57

claims; and Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and their 

family members.

232. Plaintiff Keonna Brown is an adequate class representative for the Maryland 

Class.

MINNESOTA CLASS

233. The Minnesota Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in the 

State of Minnesota who after February 1, 2006 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check 

(“ERC”) or Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax 

preparation fees were deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) 

received a Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

234. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

235. Plaintiff Heather Reyes is an adequate class representative for the Minnesota 

Class.

NEW YORK CLASSES

236. New York State Class: All natural persons residing in the State of New York

who after February 1, 2009 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check (“ERC”) or Electronic 

Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax preparation fees were 

deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) received a Republic

RAL facilitated by Defendant.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 64 of 124 PageID #:216
58

237. New York State Sub-Class: All natural persons residing in the State of New 

York, in an area with a population of less than one million, who after February 1, 2009 (a) 

received an Electronic Refund Check (“ERC”) or Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated 

by Defendant and Defendant’s tax preparation fees were deducted from the Deposit Account 

established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) received a Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

238. New York City Sub-Class: All natural persons residing in the City of New York 

who after February 1, 2009 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check (“ERC”) or Electronic 

Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax preparation fees were 

deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) received a Republic

RAL facilitated by Defendant.

239. Specifically excluded from each Class are: (a) all federal court judges who 

preside over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the 

Class; (c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all 

of their Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and 

representatives and their family members.

240. Plaintiffs Ronald Topping and Kevin and Yolanda Goodwin are adequate class 

representatives for the New York Classes.

NORTH CAROLINA CLASS

241. The North Carolina Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in 

the State of North Carolina who after January 12, 2008 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check 

(“ERC”) or Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax 

preparation fees were deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) 

received a Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 65 of 124 PageID #:217
59

242. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

243. Plaintiffs Douglas Glover, Shamira Jones, and William Reynolds are adequate 

class representatives for the North Carolina Class.

WISCONSIN CLASS

244. The Wisconsin Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in the 

State of Wisconsin who after December 20, 2009 (a) received an Electronic Refund Check 

(“ERC”) or Electronic Refund Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax 

preparation fees were deducted from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) 

received a Republic RAL facilitated by Defendant.

245. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

246. Plaintiff Terrance Patterson is an adequate class representative for the Wisconsin 

Class.

MULTI-STATE CLASS

247. The Multi-State Class is defined as follows: All natural persons residing in one of 

the Multi-States who (a) received an Electronic Refund Check (“ERC”) or Electronic Refund 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 66 of 124 PageID #:218
60

Deposit (“ERD”) facilitated by Defendant and Defendant’s tax preparation fees were deducted 

from the Deposit Account established for the ERC or ERD, or (b) received a Republic RAL

facilitated by Defendant.

248. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside 

over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class; 

(c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Defendant releases for all of their 

Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and 

their family members.

249. The Multi-States are the following states which have statutes which were enacted 

and designed to protect consumers from deceptive and unconscionable practices and unfair, 

deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices prevalent in the for-profit tax preparer industry: 

Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia 

and Wyoming (herein referred to as the “Multi-States”).9

 

9The relevant statutes are as follows: Alas. Stat. §45.50.471 et seq., A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq., C.R.S. 6-1-101 et seq., 

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110(a) et seq., 6 Del. C. § 2501 et seq., D.C. Code Ann. §28-3901 et seq., HRS § 481A-1 et 

seq., Idaho Code § 48-601 et seq., Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq., K.S.A. § 50-623 et seq., KRS § 

367.110 et seq., La.R.S. § 51:1405 et seq., 5 M.R.S. § 205-A et seq., ALM GL ch. 93A, § 1 et seq., MCLS § 

445.901 et seq., R.S.Mo. et seq., R.R.S. Neb. § 87-301 et seq., Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598.0903 et seq., N.H. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 358-A:1 et seq., N.J. Stat. § 56:8-1 et seq., N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-1 et seq., N.D. Cent. Code, § 51-10-

01 et seq., ORC Ann. 4165.01 et seq.; ORC Ann. 1345.01 et seq., 15 Okl. St. § 751 et seq., ORS § 646.605 et seq., 

73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-1 et seq., S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-1 et seq., Tex. Bus. & Com. 

Code § 17.41 et seq., Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-1 et seq., 9 V.S.A. § 2451 et seq., Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 

19.86.010 et seq., W. Va. Code § 46A-6-101 et seq.,Wyo. Stat. § 40-12-101 et seq.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 67 of 124 PageID #:219
61

250. The Class Period for each of the classes defined above continues to run until the 

resolution of this action. Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise or refine the definition of each class 

based upon information learned from discovery.

B. RULE 23(A) PREREQUISITES.

251. Numerosity. Each Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. At this time, Plaintiffs do not know the exact size of each Class. Based on 

information and belief, each Class is comprised of at least thousands of members so as to render 

joinder of all Class Members impracticable.

252. Commonality. Common questions of law and fact predominate over individual 

issues. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved 

affecting members of each Class. The questions of law and fact common to each Class 

predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members, and include, but are not 

limited to, the following:

(a) For the National Class, whether Defendant disclosed to consumers for 

which it facilitated SBBT RAL Products the interest rate, calculated as 

required by TILA, and if not, whether such failure violated California 

RAL laws and California’s consumer protection laws;

(b) For the National Class, whether Defendant included the $30.95 charge for 

the Account Handling Fee as part of the finance charge calculation when it 

disclosed the interest rate for the SBBT RAL Products it facilitated in the 

United States during the Class Period, and if not, whether such failure 

violated California RAL laws and California’s consumer protection laws;

(c) For the National Class, whether Defendant provided any disclosures of the 

interest rate for Refund Transfers (which included deferral of payment of 

the tax preparation fees) it facilitated to consumers in the United States 

during the Class Period, and if not, whether such failure violated 

California RAL laws and California’s consumer protection laws;

(d) For the National Class, whether Defendant provided the specific multiple 

disclosures required by California RAL laws when it facilitated RALs in 

the United States, and if not, whether such failure violated California RAL 

laws and California’s consumer protection laws;

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 68 of 124 PageID #:220
62

(e) For the National Class, whether the $30.95 charge for the Account 

Handling Fee constitutes interest under California’s usury laws;

(f) For the National Class, whether Defendant’s conduct regarding the SBBT 

RAL Products violated California’s usury laws;

(g) For the National Class, whether Defendant’s violations of California’s 

usury laws constitute violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.;

(h) For each state Class, whether Defendant disclosed to consumers for which 

it facilitated and/or made Republic RALs, ERCs, or ERDs the interest rate, 

calculated as required by TILA, and if not, whether such failure violated 

state RAL and consumer protection laws;

(i) For each state Class, whether Defendant included the $29.95 or $32.95 

charge for the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance 

charge calculation when it disclosed the interest rate for the Republic

RALs it facilitated and/or made during the Class Period, and if not, 

whether such failure violated state RAL and consumer protection laws;

(j) For each state Class, whether Defendant provided any disclosure of the 

interest rate for ERCs or ERDs and Tax Refund Administration Fees it 

facilitated and made to consumers during the Class Period, and if not, 

whether such failure violated state RAL and consumer protection laws;

(k) For each state Class, whether Defendant provided the specific disclosures 

required by the applicable state RAL laws when it facilitated and made 

Republic RALs, ERCs, or ERDs, and if not, whether such failure violated 

state RAL and consumer protection laws;

(l) For the Arkansas, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin Classes, whether 

Defendant received a portion of the finance charge or other loan fees for 

Republic RALs, ERCs, or ERDs that it facilitated and made in Arkansas, 

Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin during the Class Period, and if so, 

whether the receipt of such fee violated Arkansas, Maryland, New York, 

and Wisconsin RAL and consumer protection laws;

(m) For the Minnesota Class, whether the Republic RAL, ERC, or ERD 

facilitation agreements that Defendant entered into with its clients in 

Minnesota contained mandatory arbitration clauses; whether Defendant 

provided the specific disclosures required by the Minnesota RAL laws 

regarding mandatory arbitration clauses in Republic RAL, ERC, or ERD 

facilitation agreements; and if Defendant did not provide such disclosures, 

whether such failure violated the Minnesota RAL laws, the UTPA, and the 

UDTPA;

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 69 of 124 PageID #:221
63

(n) For the Multi-State Class, whether Defendant calculated interest rates 

using the guidelines established under TILA;

(o) For the Multi-State Class, whether Defendant failed to abide by the written 

disclosure requirements of TILA as relates to interest rates;

(p) For the Multi-State Class, whether violations of TILA constitute violations 

of the consumer protection statutes of the Multi-States;

(q) For the Multi-State Class, whether Defendant disclosed to consumers for 

which it facilitated Republic RALs, ERCs, or ERDs the interest rate, 

calculated as required by TILA, and if not, whether such failure violated 

the consumer protection statutes of the Multi-States;

(r) For the Multi-State Class, whether Defendant included the Tax Refund 

Administration Fee as part of the finance charge calculation when it 

disclosed the interest rate for Republic RALs, ERCs, or ERDs it facilitated 

in the Multi-States during the Class Period, and if not, whether such 

failure violated the consumer protection statutes of the Multi-States; and

(s) For the Multi-State Class, whether Defendant provided any disclosure of 

the interest rate for ERCs or ERDs it facilitated to consumers in the MultiStates during the Class Period, and if not, whether such failure violated the 

consumer protection statutes of the Multi-States.

253. Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the other Class Members’ claims. As 

described above, Defendant uses common practices, applications, forms and disclosures in 

committing the conduct that Plaintiffs allege damaged them and the Class Members. Defendant 

uniformly violated state Refund Anticipation Loan laws and consumer protection statutes by 

engaging in the conduct as described above, and these violations had the same effect on each 

member of each Class.

254. Adequacy. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of each Class because they fit 

within each class definition and their interests do not conflict with the interests of the members 

of each Class they seek to represent. Plaintiffs will prosecute this action vigorously for the 

benefit of the entire Class. Plaintiffs are represented by experienced and able attorneys. Class 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 70 of 124 PageID #:222
64

counsel have litigated numerous class actions and complex cases, and Plaintiffs’ counsel intend 

to prosecute this action vigorously for the benefit of the entire Class. Plaintiffs and class counsel 

can and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all of the members of each Class.

C. RULE 23(B) PREREQUISITES.

255. Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over questions 

affecting only individual Members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for 

fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The statutory damages sought by each member 

are such that individual prosecution would prove burdensome and expensive given the complex 

and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. It would be virtually impossible 

for the members of the proposed Classes to effectively redress the wrongs done to them on an 

individual basis. Even if the members of each Class themselves could afford such individual 

litigation, it would be an unnecessary burden on the courts.

256. Furthermore, individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or 

contradictory judgments and increases the delay and expense to all parties and to the court 

system presented by the legal and factual issues raised by Defendant’s conduct. By contrast, the 

class action device will result in substantial benefits to the litigants and the Court by allowing the 

Court to resolve numerous individual claims based upon a single set of proof in just one case.

VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION.

A. NATIONAL CLASS.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of California Refund Anticipation 

Loan Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §22250, et seq.).

257. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

258. The named plaintiffs and all Class Members are “clients” as defined by Cal. Bus.

& Prof. Code § 22251(e).

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 71 of 124 PageID #:223
65

259. Defendant is a “tax preparer” as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22251(a).

260. The SBBT RAL Products marketed, facilitated and made by Defendant are RALs 

as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22251(f).

261. Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22253.1(d)(1)-(2) and Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 22253.1(f)(2) by failing to disclose, at multiple points throughout the RAL 

facilitation process, forms separate from the RAL application articulating the interest rate “using 

the guidelines established under the federal Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 and 

following)” for each SBBT RAL Product it facilitated for a Class Member. For each Refund 

Transfer, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each SBBT RAL

or RAL Advance, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include 

the Account Handling Fee as part of the finance charge.

262. Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22253.1(d)(1)-(2), and Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 22253.1(f)(2) by failing to disclose first on a clear written document, and second in 

a written or electronic form, the specified, multiple disclosures required by Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §§ 22253.1(d)(1)-(2) to each Class Member who received a SBBT RAL Product. The 

disclosures were not clear. The disclosures did not include all the specific disclosures in the 

format specified by California RAL laws.

263. Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22253.1(b)-(c) and Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 22253.1(f)(2) by not prominently posting the interest rate, accurately calculated 

consistent with TILA, in each office where Defendant facilitated a SBBT RAL Product for a 

Class Member.

264. Each of Defendant’s violations set forth above was willful.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 72 of 124 PageID #:224
66

265. For each violation set forth herein Defendant is liable under Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code § 22257 for (a) statutory damages of $1,000, and (b) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of 

prosecution. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22257.

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, 

et seq. – False Advertising.

266. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

267. Defendant is a “person” for the purposes of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17506.

268. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, it is unlawful for any person or 

business to make untrue or misleading representations with regard to the services they advertise, 

with the intent of inducing consumers to purchase services, among other things.

269. Each of Defendant’s violations of California RAL laws set forth above in the First 

Cause of Action is also a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500.

270. In addition, Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, et seq. by not 

accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member 

within the Class Period. For each Refund Transfer, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate 

or finance charge. For each SBBT RAL or RAL Advance, Defendant failed to accurately 

disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Account Handling Fee as part of the finance 

charge. Each of these acts constitutes a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, et seq., in 

that Defendant, with the intent to induce California consumers to purchase loan products and tax 

preparation services, has made and disseminated untrue and misleading statements, which it 

knew or reasonably should have known were untrue or misleading at the time the statements 

were made.

271. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money 

as a result of Defendant’s untrue and misleading representations. Indeed, Plaintiff and members 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 73 of 124 PageID #:225
67

of the putative class purchased Defendant’s RAL products in reliance on the untrue and 

misleading representations set forth herein. If Plaintiffs had known of the untrue and misleading 

nature of Defendant’s representations, they would not have purchased the SBBT RAL Products. 

As such, they are entitled to injunctive relief and restitution, in an amount to be proven at trial.

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et 

seq. -- Unlawful, Fraudulent, and Unfair Business Acts and Practices.

272. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

273. Each of Defendant’s violations of the California RAL Laws and Cal. Bus. & Prof. 

Code §17500, et seq., set forth above is an “unlawful” act providing the basis for a finding of 

liability under the “unlawful” prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

274. Each of Defendant’s violations of the California usury laws set forth in the Fourth

Cause of Action is an “unlawful” act providing the basis for a finding of liability under the 

“unlawful” prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

275. In addition, each of Defendant’s violations of TILA set forth in Section 6 of this 

Complaint is an “unlawful” act providing the basis for a finding of liability under the “unlawful” 

prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

276. In addition, Defendant violated Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §17200, et seq. by not 

accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member 

within the Class Period. For each Refund Transfer, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate 

or finance charge. For each SBBT RAL and RAL Advance, Defendant failed to accurately 

disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the 

finance charge. Each of these acts constitutes an unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business act and 

practice in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 74 of 124 PageID #:226
68

277. Defendant’s unfair, unlawful, and deceptive acts and practices alleged herein are 

objectively material to a reasonable consumer and have deceived and/or are likely to deceive 

Plaintiffs, the Class Members and other reasonable consumers.

278. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money 

as a result of Defendant’s untrue and misleading representations. Indeed, Plaintiff and members 

of the putative class purchased Defendant’s RAL products in reliance on the untrue and 

misleading representations set forth herein. If Plaintiffs had known of the untrue and misleading 

nature of Defendant’s representations, they would not have purchased the SBBT RAL Product. 

As such, they are entitled to injunctive relief and restitution, in an amount to be proven at trial.

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of California Usury Laws.

279. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

280. Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1 states that “[t]he rate of interest upon the loan or 

forbearance of any money ... shall be 7 percent per annum but it shall be competent for the 

parties ... to contract in writing for a rate of interest ... at a rate not exceeding 10 percent per 

annum.” Each SBBT RAL Product facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period is 

a “contract” for purposes of Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1. The interest rate, properly calculated, for 

each of the SBBT RAL Products facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period was 

greater than 7% and 10%. Accordingly, each and every SBBT RAL Product facilitated and 

made by Defendant during the Class Period violated the maximum lawful rate of interest 

established by Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1.

281. Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-1 provides that “[t]he rate of interest upon the loan or 

forbearance of any money ... shall be seven dollars upon the one hundred dollars for one year ....”

The interest, properly calculated, for each of the SBBT RAL Products facilitated and made by 

Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 7%. Accordingly, each and every SBBT 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 75 of 124 PageID #:227
69

RAL Product facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated the maximum 

lawful rate of interest established by Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-1. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 

§1916.12-3, each Plaintiff and Class Member is entitled to damages equal to 1) the amount of the 

usurious interest exacted by Defendant, and 2) three times the usurious interest exacted by 

Defendant.

282. Additionally, Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-1 also states that “it shall be competent for 

parties to contract for the payment and receipt of a rate of interest not exceeding twelve dollars 

on the one hundred dollars for one year.” Each SBBT RAL Product facilitated and made by 

Defendant during the Class Period is a “contract” for purposes of Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-1. 

The interest rate, properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs 

facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 12%. Accordingly, 

each and every SBBT RAL Product facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period 

violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established by Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-1.

Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-3, each Plaintiff and Class Member is entitled to damages 

equal to 1) the amount of the usurious interest exacted by Defendant, and 2) three times the 

usurious interest exacted by Defendant.

283. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-2, “[n]o person, company, association or 

corporation shall directly or indirectly take or receive in money ... any greater sum or any greater 

value for the loan or forbearance of money ... than at the rate of twelve dollars upon one hundred 

dollars for one year.” Each of the SBBT RAL Products facilitated and made by Defendant 

includes a “loan or forbearance” for the purposes of Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-2. The interest 

rate, properly calculated, for each of the SBBT RAL Products facilitated and made by Defendant 

during the Class Period was greater than 12%. Accordingly, each and every SBBT RAL Product

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 76 of 124 PageID #:228
70

facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-2. 

For each violation set forth herein, Defendant is liable under Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-2 

establishing that the agreement to pay interest is void.

B. ARKANSAS.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of Arkansas Refund Anticipation 

Loan Act (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-116-101, et seq.).

284. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

285. The named plaintiffs and all Class Members are “consumers” for the purposes of 

the Arkansas Refund Anticipation Loan Act (“ARALA”) as defined by Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-

102(1).

286. Defendant is a “facilitator” as defined by Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-102(3).

287. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant are 

RALs as defined by Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-102(4) & (5).

288. Defendant violated Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-107(2) and Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-

103(1) &(2) by receiving a portion of the loan fees and finance charge on each Republic RAL, 

ERC, and ERD it facilitated and made for a Class Member.

289. Defendant violated Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-105(a)(4)(B), Ark. Code Ann. §4-

116-103(1) &(2) and Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-107(5) by failing to disclose on a colored-paper

form separate from the RAL application in 14-point type face the interest rate as “calculated 

utilizing the guidelines established under the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601, et 

seq., as it existed on January 1, 2009” for each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD it facilitated and 

made for a Class Member. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest 

rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 77 of 124 PageID #:229
71

interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance 

charge.

290. Defendant violated Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-105(a), Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-

103(1) &(2) and Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-107(5) by failing to disclose on a colored-paper form 

separate from the RAL application in 14-point type face the specified disclosures required by 

Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-105(a) to each Class Member who received a Republic RAL, ERC, and 

ERD. The disclosures were not on colored paper. The disclosures were not on a form separate 

from the RAL application. The disclosures were not in 14-point type face. The disclosures did 

not include all the specific disclosures in the format specified by ARALA.

291. Defendant violated Ark. Code Ann §4-116-104, Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-

103(1)&(2) and Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-107(5) by not prominently posting the interest rate, 

accurately calculated consistent with TILA, in each office where Defendant facilitated and made 

a Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD for a Class Member.

292. Each of Defendant’s violations set forth above was willful.

293. For each violation set forth herein Defendant is liable under Ark. Code Ann. §4-

116-108(b) for (a) actual and compensatory damages; (b) statutory damages of $1,000; and (c) 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of prosecution. Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-108(b).

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade 

Practices Act.

294. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

295. Defendant is a “person” for the purposes of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade 

Practices Act (ADTPA) pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §4-88-102(5).

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 78 of 124 PageID #:230
72

296. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §4-116-108(a), a facilitator who violates any 

provision of ARALA also violates the ADTPA. Accordingly, each of Defendant’s violations of 

ARALA set forth above is also a violation of the ADTPA.

297. In addition, each of Defendant’s violations of the Arkansas Usury laws set forth in 

the Third Cause of Action is also a violation of the ADTPA. 

298. In addition, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §4-88-107(a)(10), it is unlawful for any 

person to engage in any unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in business, 

commerce or trade. See AMI 3400. Throughout the Class Period, Defendant has engaged and 

continues to engage in unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts or practices harming 

Plaintiffs and the Classes, as described herein. Defendant violated the ADTPA by not accurately 

disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member within the 

Class Period. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance 

charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it 

did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge. Each of these 

acts constitutes unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts or practices harming Plaintiffs and 

the Classes in violation of the ADTPA.

299. In addition to protecting individuals from unfair competition and/or deceptive 

trade practices, the ADTPA has an additional goal of making each state’s consumer protection 

and enforcement consistent with the established policies of federal law relating to consumer 

protection.

300. The federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1666j, and its 

implementing Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 226, are laws and regulations proscribing unfair, 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 79 of 124 PageID #:231
73

deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices, and a violation thereof is a violation of the 

ADTPA.

301. By violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this Complaint, 

Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or 

practices, therefore violating the ADTPA.

302. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have a cause of action against Defendant 

pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 4–88-113 to recover damages as well as reasonable attorney’s fees 

and costs.

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of Arkansas Usury Laws.

303. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

304. Prior to repeal (effective January 1, 2011), Ark. Const. Art. 19, § 13(a)(i) 

provided that “the maximum lawful rate of interest on any contract . . . shall not exceed five 

percent (5%) per annum above the Federal Reserve Discount Rate at the time of the contract.” 

Each transaction for a Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during 

the Class Period is a “contract” for the purposes of Ark. Const. Art. 19, § 13. During the Class 

Period, the Federal Reserve Discount Rate has not exceeded 5.75%. See Historical Changes of 

the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rate, 

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/statistics/dlyrates/fedrate.html. The interest rate, properly 

calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant 

during the Class Period was greater than 11.75%. Accordingly, each and every transaction for a

Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period prior 

to January 1, 2011 violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established by Ark. Const. Art. 

19, § 13(a)(ii). Pursuant to Ark. Const. Art. 19, § 13(a)(ii) each Class Member is entitled to 

damages equal to twice the amount of interest paid.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 80 of 124 PageID #:232
74

305. Prior to repeal (effective January 1, 2011), Ark. Const. Art. 19, § 13(b) provided 

that “[a]ll contracts for consumer loans and credit sales having a greater rate of interest than 

seventeen percent (17%) per annum shall be void as to principal and interest.” Each of the 

Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant is a “contract for consumer 

loan or credit sale” for the purposes of Ark. Const. Art. 19, § 13(b). See Ark. Const. Art. 19, § 

13(c)(i); Sloan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 228 Ark. 464, 308 S.W.2d 802 (1957). The interest 

rate, properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made 

by Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 17%. Accordingly, each and every 

transaction for a Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the 

Class Period prior to January 1, 2011 violated Ark. Const. Art. 19, § 13(b). Pursuant to Ark. 

Const. Art. 19, § 13(b), each such RAL is void as to principal and interest.

306. Pursuant to Ark. Const. Amendment 89, § 3 (effective January 1, 2011), the 

maximum lawful rate of interest on loans or contracts (other than government bonds and loans 

and loans by certain federally insured depository institutions) shall not exceed seventeen percent 

(17%) per annum. Each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant 

during the Class Period is a “loan or contract” for the purposes of Ark. Const. Amendment 89, § 

3. The interest rate, properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs

facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 17%. Accordingly,

each and every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the 

Class Period on or after January 1, 2011 violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established 

by Ark. Const. Amendment 89, § 3. Pursuant to Ark. Const. Amendment 89, § 6 (b) each such 

RAL is void as to principal and interest, and each Class Member is entitled to attorney’s fees and 

costs.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 81 of 124 PageID #:233
75

307. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §4-57-105, “no person or corporation shall, directly 

or indirectly, take or receive in money, goods, things in action, or any other valuable thing, any 

greater sum or value for loan or forbearance of money or goods, things in action, or any other 

valuable thing, than is prescribed in §4-57-104.” Ark. Code Ann. §4-57-104 established the 

maximum rate of interest permitted as that amount set forth in the Arkansas Constitution. Each 

of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant includes a “loan or 

forbearance” for the purposes of Ark. Code Ann. §4-57-105. The interest rate, properly 

calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant 

during the Class Period was greater than the maximum interest rate established by the Arkansas 

Constitution, as set forth above. Accordingly, each and every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD 

facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated Ark. Code Ann. §4-57-105. 

For each violation set forth herein, Defendant is liable under Ark. Code Ann. §4-57-108 for 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of prosecution.

C. CALIFORNIA.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of California Refund Anticipation 

Loan Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22250, et seq.).

308. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

309. The named plaintiffs and all Class Members are “clients” as defined by Cal. Bus.

& Prof. Code § 22251(e).

310. Defendant is a “tax preparer” as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22251(a).

311. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs marketed, facilitated and made by 

Defendant are RALs as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22251(f).

312. Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22253.1(d)(1)-(2) and Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 22253.1(f)(2) by failing to disclose, at multiple points throughout the RAL 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 82 of 124 PageID #:234
76

facilitation process, forms separate from the RAL application articulating the interest rate “using 

the guidelines established under the federal Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 and 

following)” for each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD it facilitated for a Class Member. For each 

ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each 

Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the 

Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

313. Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22253.1(d)(1)-(2), and Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 22253.1(f)(2) by failing to disclose first on a clear, written document, and second,

in a written or electronic form, the specified multiple disclosures required by Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §§ 22253.1(d)(1)-(2) to each Class Member who received a Republic RAL, ERC, and 

ERD. The disclosures were not clear. The disclosures did not include all the specific disclosures 

in the format specified by California RAL laws.

314. Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22253.1(b)-(c) and Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 22253.1(f)(2) by not prominently posting the interest rate, accurately calculated 

consistent with TILA, in each office where Defendant facilitated a Republic RAL, ERC, and 

ERD for a Class Member.

315. Each of Defendant’s violations set forth above was willful.

316. For each violation set forth herein Defendant is liable under Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code § 22257 for (a) statutory damages of $1,000, and (b) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of 

prosecution. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22257.

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, 

et seq. – False Advertising.

317. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

318. Defendant is a “person” for the purposes of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17506.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 83 of 124 PageID #:235
77

319. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, it is unlawful for any person or 

business to make untrue or misleading representations with regard to the services they advertise, 

with the intent of inducing consumers to purchase services, among other things.

320. Each of Defendant’s violations of California RAL laws set forth above in the First 

Cause of Action is also a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500.

321. In addition, Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, et seq. by not 

accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member 

within the Class Period. For each ERC or ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or 

finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, 

as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge. Each of 

these acts constitutes a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, et seq., in that Defendant, 

with the intent to induce California consumers to purchase loan products and tax preparation 

services, has made and disseminated untrue and misleading statements, which it knew or 

reasonably should have known were untrue or misleading at the time the statements were made.

322. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money 

as a result of Defendant’s untrue and misleading representations. Indeed, Plaintiff and members 

of the putative class purchased Defendant’s RAL products in reliance on the untrue and 

misleading representations set forth herein. If Plaintiffs had known of the untrue and misleading 

nature of Defendant’s representations, they would not have purchased the Republic RAL, ERC,

and/or ERD. As such, they are entitled to injunctive relief and restitution, in an amount to be 

proven at trial.

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et 

seq. -- Unlawful, Fraudulent, and Unfair Business Acts and Practices.

323. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 84 of 124 PageID #:236
78

324. Each of Defendant’s violations of the California RAL Laws and Cal. Bus. & Prof. 

Code §17500, et seq., set forth above is an “unlawful” act providing the basis for a finding of 

liability under the “unlawful” prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

325. Each of Defendant’s violations of the California usury laws set forth in the Fourth 

Cause of Action is an “unlawful” act providing the basis for a finding of liability under the 

“unlawful” prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

326. In addition, each of Defendant’s violations of TILA set forth in Section 6 of this 

Complaint is an “unlawful” act providing the basis for a finding of liability under the “unlawful” 

prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

327. In addition, Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq. by not 

accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member 

within the Class Period. For each ERC or ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or 

finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, 

as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge. Each of 

these acts constitutes an unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business act and practice in violation of 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.

328. Defendant’s unfair, unlawful, and deceptive acts and practices alleged herein are 

objectively material to a reasonable consumer and have deceived and/or are likely to deceive 

Plaintiffs, the Class Members and other reasonable consumers.

329. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money 

as a result of Defendant’s untrue and misleading representations. Indeed, Plaintiff and members 

of the putative class purchased Defendant’s RAL products in reliance on the untrue and 

misleading representations set forth herein. If Plaintiffs had known of the untrue and misleading 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 85 of 124 PageID #:237
79

nature of Defendant’s representations, they would not have purchased the Republic RAL, ERC,

and/or ERD. As such, they are entitled to injunctive relief and restitution, in an amount to be 

proven at trial.

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of California Usury Laws.

330. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

331. Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1 states that “[t]he rate of interest upon the loan or 

forbearance of any money ... shall be 7 percent per annum but it shall be competent for the 

parties ... to contract in writing for a rate of interest ... at a rate not exceeding 10 percent per 

annum.” Each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the 

Class Period is a “contract” for purposes of Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1. The interest rate, properly 

calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant 

during the Class Period was greater than 7% and 10%. Accordingly, each and every Republic

RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated the 

maximum lawful rate of interest established by Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1.

332. Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-1 provides that “[t]he rate of interest upon the loan or 

forbearance of any money ... shall be seven dollars upon the one hundred dollars for one year....” 

The interest, properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated 

and made by Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 7%. Accordingly, each and 

every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period 

violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established by Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-1.

Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-3, each Plaintiff and Class Member is entitled to damages 

equal to 1) the amount of the usurious interest exacted by Defendant, and 2) three times the 

usurious interest exacted by Defendant.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 86 of 124 PageID #:238
80

333. Additionally, Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-1 also states that “it shall be competent for 

parties to contract for the payment and receipt of a rate of interest not exceeding twelve dollars 

on the one hundred dollars for one year.” Each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and 

made by Defendant during the Class Period is a “contract” for purposes of Cal. Civ. Code 

§1916.12-1. The interest rate, properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and 

ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 12%.

Accordingly, each and every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant 

during the Class Period violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established by Cal. Civ. 

Code §1916.12-1. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-3, each Plaintiff and Class Member is 

entitled to damages equal to 1) the amount of the usurious interest exacted by Defendant, and 2) 

three times the usurious interest exacted by Defendant.

334. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-2, “[n]o person, company, association or 

corporation shall directly or indirectly take or receive in money ... any greater sum or any greater 

value for the loan or forbearance of money ... than at the rate of twelve dollars upon one hundred 

dollars for one year.” Each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by 

Defendant includes a “loan or forbearance” for the purposes of Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-2. The 

interest rate, properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated 

and made by Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 12%. Accordingly, each and 

every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period 

violated Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-2. For each violation set forth herein, Defendant is liable 

under Cal. Civ. Code §1916.12-2, establishing that the agreement to pay interest is void.

D. FLORIDA.

1. First Cause of Action: Violations of Consumer Protection Statutes.

335. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 87 of 124 PageID #:239
81

336. Plaintiffs and each member of the Classes are “consumers” within the meaning of 

the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”).

337. Pursuant to FDUTPA, unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or 

practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are 

unlawful.

338. Throughout the Class Period, Defendant, in the course of trade and commerce, 

has engaged and continues to engage in unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts or 

practices harming Plaintiffs and the Classes, as described herein. Defendant violated FDUTPA

by not accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class 

Member within the Class Period. For each ERC or ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any 

interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose 

the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance 

charge. Each of these acts constitutes unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts or practices 

harming Plaintiffs and the Classes in violation of FDUTPA.

339. In addition to protecting individuals from unfair competition and/or deceptive 

trade practices, FDUTPA has an additional goal of making each state’s consumer protection and 

enforcement consistent with the established policies of federal law relating to consumer 

protection.

340. The federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1666j, and its 

implementing Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 226, are laws and regulations proscribing unfair, 

deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices, and a violation thereof is a violation of FDUTPA.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 88 of 124 PageID #:240
82

341. By violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this Complaint, 

Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or 

practices, therefore violating FDUTPA.

342. In addition, by violating Florida’s usury laws as described in the Second Cause of 

Action of this Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, 

or unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating FDUTPA.

343. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Defendant unfairly 

and improperly received monies and continues to hold the monies belonging to Plaintiffs.

344. The harm to Plaintiffs outweighs the utility of Defendant’s policies, acts and/or 

practices, and consequently Defendant’s conduct herein constitutes an unlawful business act or 

practice within the meaning of FDUTPA.

345. The unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices of Defendant, as fully 

described herein, present a continuing threat to members of the public to be misled and/or 

deceived by Defendant’s Refund Products as described herein.

346. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and/or fraudulent conduct 

alleged herein, Plaintiffs and Class Members have lost money. Plaintiffs and members of the 

Class are direct victims of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, and each have suffered injury in fact, 

and have lost money and/or property as a result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts and 

practices.

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of Florida Usury Laws.

347. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

348. Fla. Stat. § 687.02(1) provides that “[a]ll contracts for the payment of interest 

upon any loan, advance of money, line of credit, or forbearance to enforce the collection of any 

debt, or upon any obligation whatever, at a higher rate of interest than the equivalent of 18 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 89 of 124 PageID #:241
83

percent ... are hereby declared usurious.” Each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and 

made by Defendant during the Class Period is a “contract” for the purposes of Fla. Stat. § 

687.02(1). Accordingly, each and every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by 

Defendant during the Class Period violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established by 

Fla. Stat. § 687.02.

349. Defendant violated Florida’s usury laws when it knowingly and intentionally 

facilitated and made Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs with an interest greater than what is 

allowed by law.

350. Fla. Stat. §687.03(1) provides that:

[i]t shall be usury and unlawful for any person, or for any agent, officer, or other 

representative of any person, to reserve, charge, or take for any loan, advance of money, 

line of credit, forbearance to enforce the collection of any sum of money, or other 

obligation a rate of interest greater than the equivalent of 18 percent per annum simple 

interest, either directly or indirectly, by way of commission for advances, discounts, or 

exchange, or by any contract, contrivance, or device whatever whereby the debtor is 

required or obligated to pay a sum of money greater than the actual principal sum 

received, together with interest at the rate of the equivalent of 18 percent per annum 

simple interest.

351. The interest rate, properly calculated, for each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD 

facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 18%, the maximum 

lawful rate. Defendant knowingly reserved, charged, and took interest over the maximum lawful 

rate on each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD that it made and facilitated for Plaintiffs and Class 

Members.

352. Moreover, §687.03 clearly states that any “contrivance, or device whatever

whereby the debtor is required or obligated to pay” a particular rate of interest greater than 18% 

is a violation of the usury laws of Florida. Each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD that Defendant 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 90 of 124 PageID #:242
84

facilitated and made for Plaintiffs and Class Members during the Class Period constitutes a 

contrivance or device for purposes of §687.03.

353. In addition, Florida courts have long held that devices, contrivances, and schemes 

used to evade the state’s usury laws frustrate the purpose of those laws. Beacham v. Carr, 122 

Fla. 736, 742 (Fla. 1936). In order to determine if such a transaction is merely a scheme used to 

avoid usury limitations, “courts have been compelled to look beyond the form of a transaction to 

its substance, and they have laid it down as an inflexible rule that the mere form is immaterial, 

but that it is the substance which must be considered. 27 R.C.L. 211 § 12." Gilbert v. Doris R. 

Corp., 111 So. 2d 682, 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1959). The relationship between 

Defendant and the banks used to facilitate and make each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD for 

Plaintiffs and Class Members during the Class Period was merely a scheme, device, and 

contrivance created by Defendant in an attempt to circumvent Florida’s usury laws.

354. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §687.04, because Defendant violated Fla. Stat. §687.03, 

Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to damages equal to 1) the “entire interest so charged, 

or contracted to be charged or reserved”, and 2) twice the amount of interest already paid by 

Plaintiffs and Class Members.

355. Additionally, under Fla. Stat. §687.147(1), Plaintiffs and Class Members are 

entitled to damages equal to 1) “actual damages, but in no case less than the amount paid” by 

Plaintiffs plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

E. ILLINOIS.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of Illinois Tax Refund Anticipation 

Loan Disclosure Act (815 ILCS 177/1, et seq.).

356. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 91 of 124 PageID #:243
85

357. The named Plaintiff and all Class Members are “borrowers” for the purposes of 

the Illinois Tax Refund Anticipation Loan Act (“TRALDA”) as defined by 815 ILCS 177/5.

358. Defendant is a “facilitator” as defined by 815 ILCS 177/5.

359. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant are 

RALs as defined by 815 ILCS 177/5.

360. Defendant violated 815 ILCS 177/10 by failing to disclose on a document 

separate from the RAL application “the Annual Percentage Rate utilizing a 10-day time period” 

for each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD it facilitated and made for a Class Member. For each 

ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each 

Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the 

Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

361. For each violation set forth herein Defendant is liable under 815 ILCS 177/15 for 

(a) an amount equal to three times the RAL fee, and (b) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of 

prosecution. 815 ILCS 177/15.

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive 

Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1, et seq.).

362. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

363. Defendant is a “person” for the purposes of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade 

Practices Act (“IUDTPA”) pursuant to 815 ILCS 510/1.

364. Pursuant to 815 ILCS 510/2(5), it is unlawful for any person to represent that 

“goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or 

quantities that they do not have.”

365. Pursuant to 815 ILCS 510/2(9), it is unlawful for any person to advertise goods or 

services “with intent not to sell them as advertised.”

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 92 of 124 PageID #:244
86

366. Pursuant to 815 ILCS 510/2(12), it is unlawful for any person to engage in any 

“conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.”

367. Each of Defendant’s violations of TRALDA set forth in the First Cause of Action 

is also a violation of the IUDTPA.

368. In addition, Defendant violated the foregoing sections of the IUDTPA by not 

accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member 

within the Class Period. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate 

or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest 

rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

369. In so doing, Defendant acted with intent to sell the foregoing RAL products not as 

advertised, and instead, sold RAL products with hidden interest rate and finance charge qualities 

that, as alleged herein, in no way mirrored how they were sold to Plaintiff and members of the 

Class. Consequently, there was a great likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding on the part 

of Plaintiff and Class as to the true nature of the RAL products they purchased from Defendant.

370. Plaintiff and the Class Members have a cause of action against Defendant 

pursuant to 815 ILCS 510/3 for injunctive relief and are entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s 

fees and costs for each willful violation of the IUDTPA.

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and 

Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.).

371. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

372. Plaintiff and the Class Members are consumers within the meaning and coverage 

of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), and Defendant 

is a “person” under the Act pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.

373. The ICFA provides in relevant part:

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 93 of 124 PageID #:245
87

Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, 

including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud 

pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression 

or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the 

concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or 

employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the “Uniform 

Deceptive Trade Practices Act,” approved August 5, 1965, in the conduct 

of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any 

person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.

815 ILCS 505/2.

374. Because of the material facts alleged herein, Defendant deceived and continues to 

deceive Plaintiff and the members of the Class within the meaning of the ICFA.

375. Defendant’s deceptive conduct occurred in the course of trade or commerce.

376. As set forth herein, by not accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL 

product purchased by Plaintiff or a Class Member within the Class Period, Defendant has 

intended that Plaintiff and members of the Class rely on the validity of such a charge.

377. Specifically, for each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate 

or finance charge. Additionally, for each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose 

the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance 

charge. In all such instances, Defendant’s omitted and/or concealed facts regarding the true 

nature of its interest rates and finance charges constitute material facts under the ICFA.

378. The unfair and deceptive act of Defendant not accurately disclosing the finance 

charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member within the Class Period has directly 

and proximately caused damages to Plaintiff and the members of the Class.

379. Moreover, each of Defendant’s violations of TRALDA set forth in the First Cause 

of Action and IUDTPA set forth in the Second Cause of Action constitutes a material violation 

of the ICFA.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 94 of 124 PageID #:246
88

380. In addition, by violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this 

Complaint, Defendant violated 815 ILCS 505/2.

381. Accordingly, pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a, Plaintiff and the Class Members 

have a cause of action against Defendant for damages, injunctive relief and to recover attorney’s 

fees and costs.

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of Illinois Usury Laws.

382. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

383. Pursuant to §815 ILCS 205/1, “[t]he rate of interest upon the loan or forbearance 

of any money ... shall be five dollars ($5) upon one hundred dollars ($100).” The interest rate, 

properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by 

Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 5%. Accordingly, each and every Republic 

RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated the 

maximum lawful rate established by §815 ILCS 205/1. Pursuant to §815 ILCS 205/6, Plaintiff 

and the Class Members are entitled to damages equal to 1) twice the amount of all interest, 

discount, or charges paid, and 2) reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

384. §815 ILCS 205/4 provides that “in all written contracts it shall be lawful for the 

parties to stipulate or agree that 9% per annum ... shall be taken and paid upon every $100 of 

money loaned.” Each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during 

the Class Period is a “contract” for the purposes of §815 ILCS 205/4. The interest rate, properly 

calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant 

during the Class Period was greater than 9%. Accordingly, each and every Republic RAL, ERC, 

and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated the maximum 

lawful rate established by §815 ILCS 205/4. Pursuant to §815 ILCS 205/6, Plaintiff and the 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 95 of 124 PageID #:247
89

Class Members are entitled to damages equal to 1) twice the amount of all interest, discount, or 

charges paid, and 2) reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

385. Pursuant to §815 ILCS 205/5, “[n]o person or corporation shall directly or 

indirectly accept or receive, in money ... any greater sum or greater value for the loan, 

forbearance, or discount of any money ... than is expressly authorized by this Act or other laws 

of this State.” §815 ILCS 205/1 and §815 ILCS 205/4 establish the maximum rate of interest 

permitted as either 5% or 9%, if there is a written contract. Each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, 

and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant includes a “loan, forbearance, or discount of 

money” for the purposes of §815 ILCS 205/5. The interest rate, properly calculated, for each of 

the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period 

was greater than the maximum interest rate established by §815 ILCS 205/1 and §815 ILCS 

205/4, as set forth above. Accordingly, each and every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD 

facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated §815 ILCS 205/1 and §815 

ILCS 205/4. For each violation set forth herein, Defendant is liable under §815 ILCS 205/6 for 

1) twice the amount of all interest, discount, or charges paid, and 2) reasonable attorney’s fees 

and court costs.

F. MARYLAND.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of Maryland Refund Anticipation 

Loan and Check Act (MD. Commercial Law Code § 14-3801, et seq.).

386. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all other portions and paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length. The allegations in this cause of action are 

brought on behalf of proposed Class Members who received a RAL on or after October 1, 2010 

(the effective date of Maryland RAL Act) and are limited to Plaintiffs’ allegations on or after that 

date.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 96 of 124 PageID #:248
90

387. The named plaintiffs and all proposed Class Members are “consumers” as defined 

by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3801(b) (West 2011) because they were solicited for, 

applied for, and received a RAL.

388. Defendant is a “facilitator” as defined by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-

3801(d) (West 2011) because Defendant processed, received, and accepted applications and 

agreements for RALs, serviced and collected on RALs, and facilitated the making of RALs, and 

is neither a bank, savings and loan association, or credit union, nor an intermediary that did not 

deal with the public in making a RAL.

389. The tax refund products facilitated by Defendant are RALs as defined by MD.

CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3801(e), (f) (West 2011).

390. Defendant violated MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3806(a)(2) (West 2011) and 

MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §14-3802(1), (2) (West 2011) by receiving a portion of the loan fees 

and finance charge (including the Tax Refund Administration Fee) on each RAL it facilitated for 

a Class Member.

391. Defendant violated MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3804 (West 2011); MD.

CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3802(1), (2) (West 2011), and MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-

3806(a)(5) (West 2011) by failing to disclose on a paper form separate from the RAL application 

in 14-point type face the interest rate “using the guidelines established under the federal Truth in 

Lending Act” for each RAL it facilitated for a Class Member. For each ERC and ERD

Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL 

Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund 

Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 97 of 124 PageID #:249
91

392. Defendant violated MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3804 (West 2011); MD.

CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3802(1), (2) (West 2011); and MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-

3806(a)(5) (West 2011) by failing to disclose on a paper form separate from the RAL

application in 18-point type face the specified disclosures required by MD. CODE ANN. COM.

LAW §§ 14-3804(a)(4), (c)(4) (West 2011) to each Class Member who received a RAL. The 

disclosures were not on a form separate from the RAL application. The disclosures were not in 

18-point type face. The disclosures did not include all the specific disclosures in the format 

specified by Maryland’s RAL law.

393. Defendant violated MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3803 (West 2011); MD.

CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3802(1), (2) (West 2011); and MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-

3806(a)(5) (West 2011) by not prominently displaying required information including the 

interest rate, accurately calculated consistent with the TILA, in each office where Defendant 

facilitated a RAL for a Class Member.

394. Each of Defendant’s failures to comply with Maryland RAL Law, MD. CODE 

ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3801, et seq. (West 2011), is an unfair or deceptive trade practice within 

the meaning of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3807(a) 

(West 2011), and Defendant is therefore liable for the remedies provided under that Act, 

including attorney’s fees and costs. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 13-408(b) (West 2011).

395. In addition to the remedies provided under the Maryland Consumer Protection 

Act, for each violation set forth herein, Defendant is liable under MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 

14-3807(b) (West 2011) for: (1) actual and compensatory damages; (2) $1,000 statutory 

damages; and (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Id.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 98 of 124 PageID #:250
92

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Maryland Consumer 

Protection Act (MD. Commercial Law Code § 13-301, et seq.).

396. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all other portions and paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length.

397. Defendant is a “person” for the purposes of the Maryland Consumer Protection 

Act pursuant to MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 13-101(h) (West 2011).

398. Pursuant to MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 14-3807(a) (West 2011), a facilitator 

who violates any provision of Maryland’s RAL law also violates the Maryland Consumer 

Protection Act.

399. Additionally, pursuant to MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW § 13-303(1) (West 2011), it 

is unlawful for any person to engage in any unfair or deceptive trade practice in the sale, lease, 

rental, loan, or bailment of any consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer services. 

Defendant violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act by not accurately disclosing the 

finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member within the Class Period. For 

each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each 

Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate and did not include the 

Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

400. Defendant’s failure to disclose its fees, accurate interest rates, the true nature and 

character of its product as a loan, and the alternative options available for obtaining tax refunds, 

constituted an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

401. In addition, by violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this 

Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or 

unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 99 of 124 PageID #:251
93

402. In addition, by violating Maryland’s usury laws in the manner described in the 

Third Cause of Action of this Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing 

unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating the Maryland 

Consumer Protection Act.

403. The Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act (MCSBA) applies to tax preparers 

that facilitate refund anticipation loans.

404. Under the MCSBA, a credit services business is a person who, with respect to the 

extension of credit by others, represents that the person can or will, in exchange for payment,

obtain an extension of credit for a consumer. Credit services businesses must obtain licenses 

from the Commissioner of Financial Regulation.

405. Defendant assists consumers in obtaining extensions of credit and is compensated 

for assisting consumers in obtaining a refund anticipation loan from third-party lenders. 

406. The MCSBA prohibits a credit services business from: (1) receiving payment for 

referring a customer to a credit grantor who will or may extend credit to the consumer, if the 

credit is extended on substantially similar terms available to the general public; (2) making, 

assisting, or advising a consumer to make false statements connected with a credit application; 

(3) making or using false or misleading representations in offering or selling its services; (4) 

engaging in an act, practice, or course of business that operates as a fraud or deception in 

connection with offering or selling its services; (5) accepting payment before rendering full and 

complete performance of the contracted services; (6) creating or assisting a consumer in creating 

a new consumer credit report by obtaining and using a different name, address, telephone 

number, Social Security number, or employer tax identification number; or (7) assisting a 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 100 of 124 PageID #:252
94

consumer in obtaining an extension of credit at an interest rate which, except for federal 

preemption, would be prohibited under the State's consumer credit provisions.

407. A violation of the MCSBA is an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the 

Maryland Consumer Protection Act, subject to the Maryland Consumer Protection Act's civil 

penalties.

408. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Defendant unfairly 

and improperly received monies and continues to hold the monies belonging to Plaintiff.

409. The harm to Plaintiffs outweighs the utility of Defendant’s policies, acts and/or 

practices, and consequently Defendant’s conduct herein constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade 

practice within the meaning of Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

410. The unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices of Defendant, as fully 

described herein, present a continuing threat to members of the public to be misled and/or 

deceived by Defendant’s RAL products as described herein.

411. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and/or fraudulent conduct 

alleged herein, Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members are direct victims of Defendant’s 

unlawful conduct who have suffered injury in fact and lost money and/or property as a result of 

Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts and Practices.

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of Maryland Usury Laws.

412. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

413. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-102 (West 2011) provides that “a person may not 

charge interest in excess of an effective rate of simple interest of 6 percent per annum on the 

unpaid principal balance of a loan.” Defendant is a “person” for purposes of MD. CODE ANN.

COM. LAW §12-102 (West 2011) as defined by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-101(g) (West 

2011). Accordingly, each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 101 of 124 PageID #:253
95

during the Class Period violated the maximum lawful rate of interest, properly calculated, 

established by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-102 (West 2011).

414. As stated in MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-103(a)(1) (West 2011), if a written 

agreement exists, then “a lender may charge interest at an effective rate of simple interest not in 

excess of 8 percent per year ...” For purposes of MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-103(a)(1) (West 

2011), Defendant is a “lender” as defined by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-101(f) (West 

2011). Accordingly, each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant 

during the Class Period violated the maximum lawful rate of interest, properly calculated, 

established by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-103(a)(1) (West 2011).

415. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-103(a)(3) (West 2011) provides that if a written 

agreement exists and “is secured by the pledge of collateral which is other than a savings account 

or if such loan is unsecured, the lender may charge rate of interest not in excess of 18 percent” 

and if the loan was made after July 1, 1982, then a “lender may charge an effective rate of simple 

interest not in excess of 24 percent per year on the unpaid principal balance.” For purposes of 

MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-103(a)(3) (West 2011), Defendant is a “lender” as defined by 

MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-101(f) (West 2011). The interest rate, properly calculated, for 

each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by Defendant during the 

Class Period violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established by MD. CODE ANN. COM.

LAW §12-103(a)(3) (West 2011).

416. When making and facilitating Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs, Defendant is 

required to “furnish to the borrower a written statement which sets forth: (i) the total principal 

amount and the total amount of finance charge as defined in the federal Truth in Lending Act ...; 

(ii) The annual effective rate of simple interest charged, stated in percentage calculated to the 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 102 of 124 PageID #:254
96

nearest 0.2 percent ...;” and “(iii) The itemized amount of payments in addition to interest 

payable to the lender in connection with the loan at the time the loan is made, stated in dollars,” 

as mandated by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-106(b)(1) (West 2011). Defendant violated MD.

CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-106(b)(1) (West 2011) by providing inaccurate disclosures for its 

Republic RALs and by providing no disclosures for its ERCs and ERDs.

417. Pursuant to MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-108(a) (West 2011), “a lender may 

not charge a borrower or any other person any point or fraction of a point.” A “point” as defined 

by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-101(h) (West 2011) “means a fee, premium, bonus, loan 

origination fee, service charge, or any other charge ... charged by the lender at or before the time 

the loan is made as additional compensation for the loan.” For purposes of MD. CODE ANN.

COM. LAW §12-108(a) (West 2011), Defendant’s Tax Refund Administration Fees are 

considered “points” as defined by MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-101(h) (West 2011). 

Defendant violated MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-108(a) (West 2011) by charging Plaintiffs 

and Class Members “points” in conjunction with its Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs.

418. Defendant violated Maryland usury laws for each ERC and ERD it issued within 

the last six months pursuant to MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-111 (West 2011).

419. For each ERC and ERD issued within the last six months, Plaintiffs and Class 

Members are entitled to damages equal to the greater of either 1) three times the amount of 

interest and charges collected in excess of the interest authorized by Maryland usury laws, or 2) 

$500. MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW §12-114(a)(1) (West 2011).

G. MINNESOTA.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of the Minnesota Refund 

Anticipation Loan Laws (Minn. Stat. § 270c.445, et seq.).

420. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 103 of 124 PageID #:255
97

421. The allegations in this cause of action are brought on behalf of Class Members 

who received a Republic RAL, ERC, or ERD facilitated by Defendant.

422. The named plaintiffs and all Class Members are “clients” as defined by Minn. 

Stat. § 270C.445, subd 2(c).

423. Defendant is a “tax preparer” as defined by Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd 2(h)(i).

424. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated by Defendant are RALs as 

defined by Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd 2(g).

425. Defendant violated Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd 3a(a) by inserting into each 

RAL facilitation agreement a provision that arranges for a deduction from the RAL for a loan fee 

for each Republic RAL it facilitated for a Class Member.

426. Defendant violated Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd 4a(2)(i) by failing to disclose, 

on a document separate from the loan materials, “[t]he annual percentage rate (APR), based on 

the estimated payment period” of the loan for each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD it facilitated 

for a Class Member. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or 

finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, 

as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

427. Defendant violated Minn. Stat. § 270.445, subd 3a(b) by failing to provide a 

separate written notice stating that arbitration was the exclusive means of dispute resolution, that 

Defendant’s clients had the right to opt out of arbitration within thirty days, and that the 

arbitration clause would not apply to violations of the Minnesota RAL laws, notwithstanding that 

Defendant’s ERC and ERD facilitation agreements and Republic RAL facilitation agreements 

contained mandatory arbitration clauses.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 104 of 124 PageID #:256
98

428. Defendant violated Minn. Stat. § 270C.445, subd. 3 and the standards of conduct 

required for tax preparers.

429. For each violation set forth herein, Defendant is liable under Minn. Stat. § 

270C.445, subd 7 for (1) actual damages, (2) incidental and consequential damages, (3) statutory 

damages of twice the sum of the tax preparation fees charged to the client and all interest and 

fees for the refund anticipation loans it facilitated, (4) reasonable attorney’s fees, (5) court costs,

and (6) any other equitable relief this Court considers appropriate.

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of Unlawful Trade Practices Act 

(Minn. Stat. § 325D.09, et seq.).

430. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

431. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 270C.445 Subd. 7(a), any violation of the Minnesota 

RAL laws is an unfair, deceptive, and unlawful trade practice within the meaning of Minn. Stat.

§ 8.31, and any action for violations of the Minnesota RAL laws is in the public interest.

432. Defendant is a “person” for the purposes of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act

(“UTPA”), pursuant to Minn. Stat. §325D.10(a).

433. Defendant’s sales of refund anticipation loans are “sales of merchandise at retail” 

for the purposes of the purposes of the UTPA. Minn. Stat. §325D.10(d).

434. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 325D.12(2), it is unlawful when, in connection with the 

sale of merchandise at retail, any person misrepresents the true nature of such sale.

435. Each of Defendant’s violations of the Minnesota RAL laws set forth above in the 

First Cause of Action is also a violation of the UTPA.

436. In addition, Defendant violated the UTPA, including Minn. Stat. § 325D.12(2), by 

not accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member 

within the Class Period. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 105 of 124 PageID #:257
99

or finance charge. For each Republic RAL Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest 

rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

437. In addition, by violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this 

Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or 

unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating the UTPA.

438. In addition, by violating Minnesota’s usury laws in the manner described in 

Fourth Cause of Action of this Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing 

unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating the UTPA.

439. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have a cause of action against Defendant 

pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 325D.12(2), and Minn. Stat.§ 8.31 Subd. 3a to recover damages as well 

as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade 

Practices Act (Minn. Stat. § 325D.43, et seq.).

440. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

441. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, a corporation violates the UDTPA when it 

“represents that . . . services have . . . characteristics . . . that they do not have,” or “engages in 

any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 

Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd 1(5) & (13).

442. Each of Defendant’s violations of the Minnesota RAL laws set forth above in the 

First and Second Causes of Action is also a violation of the UDTPA.

443. In addition, Defendant violated the UDTPA, Minn. Stat. § 325D.43, et seq. by not 

accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member 

within the Class Period. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 106 of 124 PageID #:258
100

or finance charge. For each Republic RAL Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest 

rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

444. In addition, by violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this 

Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or 

unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating the UDTPA.

445. In addition, by violating Minnesota’s usury laws in the manner described in the 

Fourth Cause of Action of this Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing 

unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating the UDTPA.

446. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have a cause of action against Defendant 

pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 325F.69 to enjoin these deceptive practices by Defendant as described 

in this Complaint.

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of Minnesota Usury Laws.

447. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

448. Minn. Stat. §334.01 provides that “no person shall directly or indirectly take or 

receive in money, goods, or things in action, or in any other way, any greater sum, or any greater 

value, for the loan or forbearance of money, goods, or things in action, than $8 on $100 for one 

year.” The interest rate, properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs 

facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 8%. Accordingly, 

each and every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the 

Class Period violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established by Minn. Stat. §334.01.

449. Defendant loaned money to Plaintiff that was absolutely repayable at an amount 

of interest greater than allowed by Minnesota law. Plaintiffs were harmed when they paid the 

excessive interest rates and fees on these loans.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 107 of 124 PageID #:259
101

450. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §334.02 each Plaintiff and Class Member is entitled to the 

“full amount of interest or premium so paid, with costs.” Additionally, the Republic RALs, 

ERCs, and ERDs, as well as the Application Agreements, facilitated and made by Defendant are 

void due to their usurious nature as proscribed in Minn. Stat. §334.03.

H. NEW YORK.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of N.Y. CLS Tax § 32 (On Behalf of 

the New York State Class).

451. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations. 

452. The allegations in this cause are brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the 

members of the New York State Class.

453. Defendant is a “facilitator” as defined by N.Y. CLS Tax § 32(a)(6).

454. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated by Defendant are RALs as 

defined by N.Y. Tax Law §§ 32(a)(10)-(11).

455. Defendant violated N.Y. CLS Tax §32(f)(1)(A) by receiving a portion of the 

bank’s fees and finance charge on each RAL it facilitated for a Class Member. 

456. Defendant violated N.Y. CLS Tax §32(f)(1)(B), prohibiting unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in the facilitation of RALs, by failing to make the required written disclosures, 

on a piece of paper separate from the tax preparation and loan materials, in the requisite font 

size, detailing the APR and additional fees associated with its RALs.

457. Defendant also violated N.Y. CLS Tax §32(f)(1)(B), prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in the facilitation of RALs, by not accurately disclosing the finance 

charge for each RAL product purchased by a member of the New York State Class within the 

Class Period. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 108 of 124 PageID #:260
102

charge. For each Republic RAL Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did 

not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

458. For each violation set forth herein, Defendant is liable under N.Y. CLS Tax §32 

for statutory damages of $500. N.Y. CLS Tax § 32(f)(2).

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 372 (On

Behalf of the New York State Subclass).

459. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

460. The allegations in this cause of action are brought on behalf of Plaintiff 

Hernandez and members of the New York State Subclass.

461. Defendant is a “facilitator” as defined by N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 371(a).

462. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated by Defendant are RALs as 

defined by N.Y. CLS Gen Bus §§ 371(c)-(d).

463. Defendant violated N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 372(e)(2) by failing to disclose on a 

form separate from the RAL application in 14-point type face the interest rate, expressed as the 

estimated annual percentage rate (APR) based upon the amount of time that the loan would be 

outstanding, for each RAL it facilitated for a Class Member. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant 

failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed 

to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as 

part of the finance charge.

464. Defendant violated N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 372(d) by failing to provide Class 

Members with a Consumer’s Bill of Rights prior to any discussion of tax preparation or 

facilitation of a RAL.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 109 of 124 PageID #:261
103

465. Defendant violated N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 372(d) by failing to verbally review with

the Class Members the Consumer’s Bill of Rights prior to any discussion of tax preparation or 

facilitation of any of the various RALs.

466. Defendant violated N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 372(f) by failing to provide the 

specified, requisite oral disclosures to each Class Member who received a Republic RAL, ERC, 

and ERD. Defendant failed to adequately orally disclose the interest rate and the fees associated 

with the RAL.

467. For each violation set forth herein, Defendant is liable under N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 

372 for statutory damages of not less than $250 nor more than $500 for the first violation and for 

each succeeding violation not less than $500 dollars nor more than $750. N.Y. CLS Gen Bus § 

372(g).

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of New York City Administrative 

Code §20-739, et seq., (On Behalf of the New York City Subclass).

468. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

469. The allegations in this cause of action are brought on behalf of the members of the 

New York City Subclass.

470. Defendant is a “tax preparer” as defined by New York City Administrative Code 

§ 20-739.

471. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated by Defendant are RALs as 

defined by New York City Administrative Code § 20-739.

472. Defendant violated New York City Administrative Code § 20-741.1(2) by failing 

to disclose on a form separate from the RAL application in 14-point type face the interest rate, 

expressed as the estimated annual percentage rate (APR) based upon the amount of time that the 

loan would be outstanding, for each RAL it facilitated for a Class Member. For each ERC and 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 110 of 124 PageID #:262
104

ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, 

Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund 

Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

473. Defendant violated New York City Administrative Code § 20-740.1(b) by failing 

to provide a Consumer’s Bill of Rights, on a sheet of paper separate from the RAL application 

and in 14-point type face, calling to the taxpayer’s attention the interest rate, expressed as the 

estimated annual percentage rate (APR) based upon the amount of time that the loan would be 

outstanding, for each RAL it facilitated for a Class Member. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant 

failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed 

to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as 

part of the finance charge.

474. For each violation set forth herein Defendant is liable under New York City 

Administrative Code § 20-743.1 for (a) compensatory damages, (b) injunctive and declaratory 

relief, (c) attorney’s fees and costs, and (d) such other relief as a court may deem appropriate.

4. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of New York’s Deceptive Trade 

Practices Laws (NY CLS Gen Bus § 349, et seq.,) (On Behalf of New 

York State Class).

475. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

476. The allegations in this cause of action are brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs and 

members of the New York State Class.

477. Pursuant to NY CLS Gen Bus § 349, it is unlawful for any person to engage in 

any “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the 

furnishing of any service” in the state of New York.

478. Each of Defendant’s violations of the New York State RAL law and New York 

City RAL set forth above is also a violation NY CLS Gen Bus § 349.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 111 of 124 PageID #:263
105

479. In addition, Defendant violated NY CLS Gen Bus § 349 by not accurately 

disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a member of the New York 

State Class within the Class Period. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any 

interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose 

the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance 

charge.

480. In addition, by violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this 

Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing “deceptive acts or practices in 

the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service,” therefore,

violating NY CLS Gen Bus § 349.

481. In addition, by violating New York’s usury laws in the manner described in the 

Fifth Cause of Action of this Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing 

“deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the 

furnishing of any service,” therefore violating NY CLS Gen Bus § 349.

482. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have a cause of action against Defendant 

pursuant to NY CLS Gen Bus § 349(h) to recover, for each violation, (a) actual damages or $50, 

whichever is greater; (b) treble damages, at the court’s discretion, not to exceed $1,000; and (c) 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

5. Fifth Cause of Action: Violation of New York Usury Laws.

483. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

484. NY CLS Gen Oblig §5-501 provides that the “rate of interest ... shall be six per 

centum per annum unless a different rate is prescribed in section fourteen-a of the banking law.”

Indeed, Section 14-a of the banking law does set a new rate: “The maximum rate of interest ...

shall be sixteen per centum per annum.” NY CLS Bank §14-a(1). The interest rate, properly 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 112 of 124 PageID #:264
106

calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made during the 

Class Period was greater than 16%. Accordingly, each and every Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD

facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated the maximum lawful rate of 

interest established by NY CLS Gen Oblig §5-501 and NY CLS Bank §14-a(1). Pursuant to NY 

CLS Gen Oblig §5-513, each Class Member is entitled to damages equal to the amount of money 

paid above the lawful rate of interest.

485. Additionally, the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by 

Defendant during the Class Period are void pursuant to NY CLS Gen Oblig §5-511(1).

I. NORTH CAROLINA.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of North Carolina Refund 

Anticipation Loan Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-245, et seq.).

486. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

487. The named plaintiff and all Class Members are “debtors” as defined by N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 53-246(5).

488. Defendant is a “facilitator” as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-246(6).

489. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated by Defendant are RALs as 

defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-246(8).

490. Defendant violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-249(d) and N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-250(1) 

by failing to disclose on a document separate from the RAL application the specified disclosures 

required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-249(d) for each RAL it facilitated for a Class Member. For 

each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each 

Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the 

Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 113 of 124 PageID #:265
107

491. Defendant violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-249(d) and N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-250(1)

by failing to disclose on a form separate from the RAL application the specified disclosures 

required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-249(d) to each Class Member who received a Republic RAL, 

ERC, and ERD. The disclosures were not on a form separate from the RAL application. The 

disclosures did not include all the specific disclosures in the format specified by NC RALA.

492. Defendant violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-249(c) and N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-250(1)

by not prominently posting the interest rate, accurately calculated consistent with TILA, in each 

office where Defendant facilitated a Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD for a Class Member.

493. For each violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-250 set forth herein Defendant is liable 

under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-251(c) for (a) damages of three times the amount of the refund 

anticipation loan fee, (b) any other, unauthorized charges related to the RAL, and (c) reasonable 

attorney's fees. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-251(c).

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of North Carolina’s Consumer 

Protection Laws.

494. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

495. Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Classes are “consumers” within the 

meaning of the North Carolina consumer protection laws.

496. Pursuant to the North Carolina consumer protection statute unfair methods of 

competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the 

conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.

497. Defendant, in the course of trade and commerce, has engaged and continues to 

engage in unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts or practices harming Plaintiff and the 

members of the proposed Classes, as described herein.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 114 of 124 PageID #:266
108

498. Each of Defendant’s violations of the North Carolina RAL laws set forth above in 

the First Cause of Action is also a violation of the North Carolina consumer protection statutes.

499. In addition, Defendant violated the North Carolina consumer protection statutes

by not accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class 

Member within the Class Period. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any 

interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose 

the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance 

charge. Each of these acts constitutes unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts or practices 

harming Plaintiffs and the Classes in violation of the North Carolina consumer protection 

statutes.

500. In addition, by violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this 

Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or 

unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating the North Carolina consumer protection 

statutes.

501. In addition, by violating North Carolina’s usury laws in the manner described in 

the Third Cause of Action of this Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations 

proscribing unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating the North 

Carolina consumer protection statutes.

502. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Defendant unfairly 

and improperly received monies and continues to hold the monies belonging to Plaintiff and 

members of the proposed Classes.

503. The harm to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes outweigh the utility of 

Defendant’s policies, acts and/or practices, and consequently Defendant’s conduct herein 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 115 of 124 PageID #:267
109

constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of the North Carolina 

consumer protection statutes.

504. The unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices of Defendant, as fully 

described herein, present a continuing threat to members of the public to be misled and/or 

deceived by Defendant’s RAL products as described herein.

505. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and/or fraudulent conduct 

alleged herein, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes have lost money. Plaintiff and 

members of the proposed Classes are direct victims of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, and each 

have suffered injury in fact, and have lost money and/or property as a result of Defendant’s 

unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

3. Third Cause of Action: Violation of North Carolina Usury Laws.

506. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

507. N.C. Gen. Stat. §24-1 allows for a legal rate of interest of 8%. The interest rate, 

properly calculated, for each of the Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated and made by 

Defendant during the Class Period was greater than 8%. Accordingly, each and every Republic 

RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period violated the 

maximum lawful rate of interest established by N.C. Gen. Stat. §24-1. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. 

Stat. §24-2, each Plaintiff and Class Member is entitled to damages equal to 1) the forfeiture of 

the entire interest, and 2) twice the amount of interest paid.

508. N.C. Gen. Stat. §24-1.1(c) provides that “the Commissioner of Banks will 

announce and publish the maximum interest of permitted” by the fifteenth of each month.

During the Class Period, the Commissioner of Banks set the maximum rate of interest at 16%.

See Maximum Rate of Interest Permitted on Certain Loans, http://www.nccob.gov/Public/docs/ 

News/Pub%20And%20Research/Maximum_Rate_of_Interest.pdf. Accordingly, each and every

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 116 of 124 PageID #:268
110

Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD facilitated and made by Defendant during the Class Period 

violated the maximum lawful rate of interest established by N.C. Gen. Stat. §24-1.1. Pursuant to 

N.C. Gen. Stat. §24-2, each Plaintiff and Class Member is entitled to damages equal to 1) the 

forfeiture of the entire interest, and 2) twice the amount of interest paid.

J. WISCONSIN.

1. First Cause of Action: Violation of Wisconsin Refund Anticipation 

Loan Laws (Wis. Stat. §422.310).

509. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

510. Plaintiff and all Class Members are “customers” as defined by Wis. Stat. 

§421.301(17).

511. Defendant is a “creditor” as defined by Wis. Stat.§421.301(16).

512. The Republic RALs, ERCs, and ERDs facilitated by Defendant are RALs as 

defined by Wis. Stat. §421.301(37m).

513. Defendant violated Wis. Stat. §422.310(2) by receiving a portion of the loan fees 

and finance charge on each Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD it facilitated for a Class Member.

514. Defendant violated Wis. Stat. §422.310(1)(h) by failing to disclose the interest 

rate as calculated under the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601, et seq. for each 

Republic RAL, ERC, and ERD it facilitated for a Class Member. For each ERC and ERD, 

Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, 

Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund 

Administration Fee as part of the finance charge.

515. For each violation set forth herein Defendant is liable under Wis. Stat. §425.304 

“in an amount equal to the greater of: (1) Twice the amount of the finance charge in connection 

with the transaction, except that the liability under this subsection shall not be less than 100 nor 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 117 of 124 PageID #:269
111

greater than 1,000; or (2) The actual damages, including any incidental and consequential 

damages, sustained by the customer by reason of the violation.” Wis. Stat. §425.304.

2. Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

516. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

517. Defendant is a “creditor” for the purposes of the Wisconsin RAL laws and 

Wisconsin Consumer Act pursuant to Wis. Stat. §421.301(16).

518. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. §422.310(3), a creditor who violates any provision of the 

Wisconsin RAL laws also violates the Wisconsin Consumer Act. Each of Defendant’s violations 

of the Wisconsin RAL laws set forth above is also a violation of the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

519. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. §421.102(2)(b), it is unlawful for any merchant to engage 

in unfair, deceptive, false, misleading and unconscionable practices. Defendant violated Wis. 

Stat. §421.102(2)(b) by not accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product

purchased by a Class Member within the Class Period. For each Republic RAL, Defendant 

failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration 

Fee as part of the finance charge. Each of these acts constitutes a violation of Wis. Stat. 

§421.102(2)(b).

520. In addition, by violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this 

Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or 

unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating Wis. Stat. §421.102(2)(b).

3. Third Cause of Action: Fraudulent Representations and Deceptive 

Trade Practices in Violation of §100.18(1), Wis. Stats.

521. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

522. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. §100.18(1), it is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation 

or association, or agent or employee thereof, to make untrue, deceptive or misleading 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 118 of 124 PageID #:270
112

representations with regard to the services they advertise, with the intent of inducing the public 

to purchase services, among other things.

523. Each of Defendant’s violations of the Wisconsin RAL laws set forth above is also 

a violation of Wis. Stat. §100.18(1).

524. In addition, Defendant violated Wis. Stat. §100.18(1) by not accurately disclosing 

the finance charge for each RAL product purchased by a Class Member within the Class Period. 

For each ERC and ERD, Defendant failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For 

each Republic RAL, Defendant failed to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include 

the Tax Refund Administration Fee as part of the finance charge. Each of these acts constitutes a 

violation of Wis. Stat. §100.18(1) in that Defendant, with the intent to induce Wisconsin 

consumers to purchase loan products and tax preparation services, has made and disseminated 

untrue and misleading statements, which it knew or reasonably should have known were untrue 

or misleading at the time the statements were made.

525. In addition, by violating TILA in the manner described in Section VI of this 

Complaint, Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or 

unconscionable acts or practices, therefore violating Wis. Stat. §100.18(1).

526. After, in reliance on, and due to Defendant’s untrue and misleading statements, 

which Plaintiff reasonably believed to be true and Plaintiff and the Class Members were 

reasonably likely to believe to be true, Plaintiff and the Class Members were induced to purchase 

Defendant’s RAL products.

527. Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have purchased Defendant’s RAL 

products altogether, or would have paid less for these products, had Defendant not 

misrepresented the interest rate, finance charge and Tax Refund Administration Fee.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 119 of 124 PageID #:271
113

528. Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged as a result of Defendant’s 

unfair, unlawful and deceptive conduct alleged herein, and have a cause of action against 

Defendant to recover damages as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

K. MULTI-STATE CLASS CLAIMS.

529. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations.

530. Under the consumer protection statutes10 for each of the Multi-States, it is 

unlawful for any person to engage in any unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in 

business, commerce or trade. Throughout the Class Period, Defendant has engaged and 

continues to engage in unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts or practices harming 

Plaintiffs and the Classes, as described herein. Defendant violated each of the consumer 

protection statutes by not accurately disclosing the finance charge for each RAL product

purchased by a Class Member within the Class Period. For each ERC and ERD, Defendant 

failed to disclose any interest rate or finance charge. For each Republic RAL, Defendant failed 

to accurately disclose the interest rate, as it did not include the Tax Refund Administration Fee as 

part of the finance charge. Each of these acts constitutes unconscionable, unfair, and/or 

deceptive acts or practices harming Plaintiffs and the Classes in violation of each of the 

consumer protection statutes.

 

10The relevant statutes are as follows: Alas. Stat. §45.50.471 et seq., A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq., C.R.S. 6-1-101 et 

seq., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110(a) et seq., 6 Del. C. § 2501 et seq., D.C. Code Ann. §28-3901 et seq., HRS § 481A-1 

et seq., Idaho Code § 48-601 et seq., Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq., K.S.A. § 50-623 et seq., KRS § 

367.110 et seq., La.R.S. § 51:1405 et seq., 5 M.R.S. § 205-A et seq., ALM GL ch. 93A, § 1 et seq., MCLS § 

445.901 et seq., R.S.Mo. et seq., R.R.S. Neb. § 87-301 et seq., Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598.0903 et seq., N.H. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 358-A:1 et seq., N.J. Stat. § 56:8-1 et seq., N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-1 et seq., N.D. Cent. Code, § 51-10-

01 et seq., ORC Ann. 4165.01 et seq.; ORC Ann. 1345.01 et seq., 15 Okl. St. § 751 et seq., ORS § 646.605 et seq., 

73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-1 et seq., S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-1 et seq., Tex. Bus. & Com. 

Code § 17.41 et seq., Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-1 et seq., 9 V.S.A. § 2451 et seq., Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 

19.86.010 et seq., W. Va. Code § 46A-6-101 et seq.,Wyo. Stat. § 40-12-101 et seq.

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 120 of 124 PageID #:272
114

531. In addition to protecting individuals from unfair competition and/or deceptive 

trade practices, each of the consumer protection statutes has an additional goal of making each 

state’s consumer protection and enforcement consistent with the established policies of federal 

law relating to consumer protection.

532. The federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1666j, and its 

implementing Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 226, are laws and regulations proscribing unfair, 

deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices, and a violation thereof is a violation of each of the 

consumer protection statutes

533. By violating TILA in the manner described in Section V of this Complaint, 

Defendant violated laws and regulations proscribing unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or 

practices, therefore violating each of the consumer protection statutes.

534. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have a cause of action against Defendant 

pursuant to each of the consumer protection statutes to recover damages as well as reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs.

IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment in favor of themselves and the Classes for the 

following:

A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action 

under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; that Plaintiffs are proper class 

representatives; and that the best practicable notice of this action be given to members of the 

Class represented by Plaintiffs;

B. That judgment be entered against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiffs and the 

Classes on the Causes of Action in this Complaint, for disgorgement, compensatory damages and 

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 121 of 124 PageID #:273
115

statutory damages under state Refund Anticipation Loan laws and consumer protection statutes

and injunctive relief for the Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and North Carolina Classes;

C. That Defendant be permanently enjoined from its unfair, fraudulent and deceitful 

activity; 

D. That judgment be entered imposing interest on damages;

E. That judgment be entered imposing litigation costs and attorneys’ fees under state 

Refund Anticipation Loan laws and consumer protection statutes; and

F. For all other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES PULLIAM

 & BOWMAN, PLLC

Darrin L. Williams (ABN 94069)

Hank Bates (ABN 98063)

S. Rebecca Kaufman (ABN 2012071)

11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200

Little Rock, AR 72212

Tel: (501) 312-8500

Fax: (501) 312-8505 

GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 

Kenneth J. Grunfeld (PA Bar No. 84121) 

Richard M. Golomb (PA Bar No. 42845) 

Ruben Honik (PA Bar No. 33109) 

1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Telephone: (215) 985-9177 

Fax: (215) 985- 4169

JACKSON & MCGEE, LLP

Gary Jackson

225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 200

Charlotte, NC 28203

Tel: (704) 377-6680

Fax: (704) 377-6690

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 122 of 124 PageID #:274
116

ADEMI & O’REILLY LLP

Guri Ademi (SBN: 1021729)

Shpetim Ademi (SBN: 1026973)

David J. Syrios (SBN: 1045779)

Corey Mather (SBN: 1046210)

3620 East Layton Ave.

Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110

Telephone: (414) 482-8000

Facsimile: (414) 482-8001

gademi@ademilaw.com

sademi@ademilaw.com

dsyrios@ademilaw.com

cmather@ademilaw.com

JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 

Robert K. Jenner (04165)

Justin A. Browne (29164)

Jason B. Penn (28974)

1777 Reisterstown Road

Baltimore, MD 21208

Tel: (410) 653-3200

Fax: (410) 653-6903

RJenner@MyAdvocates.com

JBrowne@MyAdvocates.com

JPenn@MyAdvocates.com

GERSOWITZ, LIBO & KOREK, P.C.

Jeff S. Korek, Esquire, State Bar No. 

jkorek@lawyertime.com

111 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, NY 10006

Tel: (212) 385-4410

Fax: (212) 385-4417

CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP

Jennifer W. Sprengel

Daniel O. Herrera

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel: (312) 782-4880

Fax: (312) 782-4485

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 123 of 124 PageID #:275
117

KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.

Brian T. Ku, Esq. (Fla. # 610461)

Louis I. Mussman, Esq. (Fla. # 597155)

M. Ryan Casey, Esq.

12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 406

Miami, Florida 33181

Tel: (305) 891-1322

Fax: (305) 891-4512

ryan@kumussman.com

MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP

Gillian L. Wade, State Bar No. 229124

gwade@milsteinadelman.com

M. Isaac Miller, State Bar No. 266459 

imiller@milsteinadelman.com

2800 Donald Douglas Loop North

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Telephone: (310) 396-9600

Fax: (310) 396-9635

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Kathleen Flynn Peterson (#130382)

Stacey P. Slaughter (#296971)

Matthew R. Veenstra (#0392517)

2800 LaSalle Plaza 

800 LaSalle Avenue

Minneapolis, MN 55402

T: 612-349-8500

F: 612-339-4181

BY: /s/ Hank Bates

HANK BATES, ABN 98063

Counsel for Proposed Plaintiff Class

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Hank Bates, an attorney, certify that on June 22, 2012, I filed the foregoing document 

via the Court’s ECF system, which will cause a true and correct copy of the same to be served 

electronically on all ECF-registered counsel of record.

/s/ Hank Bates

Hank Bates

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/22/12 Page 124 of 124 PageID #:276