Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 1 of 24 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Counsel 

MICHAEL WHITE 

MATTHEW J. WILSHIRE 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mailstop CC-10232 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-3196 (White), (202) 326-2976 (Wilshire) 

Facsimile: (202) 326-3768 

Email: mwhite1@ftc.gov, mwilshire@ftc.gov 

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD 

Attorney General of the State of New York 

CHRISTOPHER L. BOYD 

Assistant Attorney General 

350 Main Street, Suite 300A 

Buffalo, NY 14202 

Telephone: (716) 853-8457 

Facsimile: (716) 853-8414 

Email: Christopher.Boyd@ag.ny.gov 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, and 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by 

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, Attorney General 

of the State of New York, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HYLAN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, a New 

York limited liability company; WORLDWIDE 

PROCESSING GROUP, LLC, a New York limited 

liability company, also d/b/a WORLDWIDE 

PROCESSING, also d/b/a FORWARD 

MOVEMENT RECOVERY, and also d/b/a FMR; 

FRANK A. UNGARO, JR., individually and as a 

corporate officer of Worldwide Processing Group, 

LLC; and, ANDREW SHAEVEL, individually and 

as a corporate officer of Hylan Asset Management, 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. ____________ 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 2 of 24 

Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the People of the State of New 

York, by Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General of the State of New York (“State of New 

York”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint allege: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and Section 814 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692l, to obtain temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive 

relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement 

of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, in 

connection with Defendants’ deceptive and abusive debt collection practices, including the 

marketing and selling of portfolios that are fake or the result of fraudulently originated loans, and 

attempting to harass consumers into paying debts that they do not owe. 

2. The State of New York, by and through the Office of the Attorney General 

(“OAG”), brings this action under New York Executive Law § 63(12) and New York General 

Business Law Article 22-A, § 349, and Article 29-H, § 602, to obtain damages, restitution, 

injunctive and equitable relief and penalties of up to $5,000 for each violation of General 

Business Law Article 22-A. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 1692l. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred 

upon this Court with respect to the supplemental state law claims of the State of New York by 28 

U.S.C. § 1367. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 3 of 24 

4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (c)(2), 

and (d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

PLAINTIFFS 

5. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by 

statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The 

FTC also enforces the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, which prohibits abusive, deceptive, 

and unfair debt collection practices and imposes duties upon debt collectors. 

6. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own 

attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and the FDCPA and to secure such equitable relief 

as may be appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, 

the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 

56(a)(2)(A), and 1692l(a). 

7. The State of New York, by its Attorney General, is authorized to take action to 

enjoin (i) repeated and persistent fraudulent and illegal business conduct under New York 

Executive Law § 63(12); (ii) deceptive business practices under New York General Business 

Law § 349; and (iii) illegal debt collection practices under General Business Law § 602; and to 

obtain legal or equitable relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the 

appointment of a receiver, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, or other relief as may be 

appropriate. 

DEFENDANTS 

8. Defendant Hylan Asset Management, LLC (“Hylan”) is a New York 

corporation, formerly known as Solex Asset Group, LLC, with its registered address and 

3 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 4 of 24 

principal place of business at 5477 Main Street, Amherst, New York, 14221. Hylan transacts or 

has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. 

9. Defendant Andrew Shaevel is or has been an owner, officer, director, member, 

and/or manager of Defendant Hylan. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, Shaevel has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in Hylan’s acts and practices, including the acts and practices set forth in this 

Complaint. Among other things, Shaevel has controlled Hylan’s finances and business 

operations, purchased debt through it and affiliated entities, and signed corporate papers. 

Shaevel resides in this district and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has 

transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. 

10. Defendant Worldwide Processing Group, LLC, also d/b/a Worldwide 

Processing, also d/b/a Forward Movement Recovery or FMR (“Worldwide Processing”), is a 

New York limited liability company that has held its principal place of business out as 5817 

South Park Ave., Hamburg, NY 14075. Worldwide Processing, transacts or has transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

11. Defendant Frank A. Ungaro, Jr. is or has been the owner and an officer of 

Worldwide Processing. At times material to this complaint, acting alone or in concert with 

others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the 

acts and practices of Worldwide Processing, including the acts and practices set forth in this 

Complaint. Among other things, Ungaro has controlled Worldwide Processing’s finances and 

business operations, purchased debt through it, and signed corporate papers. Ungaro resides in 

this district and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 5 of 24 

12. Defendants Worldwide Processing and Frank A. Ungaro, Jr. (collectively, the 

“Worldwide Defendants”) are third-party debt collectors that, in many instances, have purchased 

or received portfolios of allegedly past-due consumer debt and collected payments from 

consumers nationwide. The Worldwide Defendants are “debt collectors” as defined in Section 

803(6) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). The Worldwide Defendants have attempted to 

collect purported debts by contacting consumers using instrumentalities of interstate commerce, 

including telephone calls, electronic mail, and United States mail. 

COMMERCE 

13. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial 

course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANTS’ MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION OF 

COUNTERFEIT AND UNAUTHORIZED DEBTS 

14. This is a case against Defendants who have profited from collecting on “phantom 

debt.” Hylan, and its owner Shaevel, have purchased and distributed for collection two types of 

purported debts that consumers did not owe: counterfeit debts fabricated from misappropriated 

information about consumers’ identities and finances; and debts purportedly owed on bogus 

“autofunded” payday loans that fraudulent enterprises foisted on consumers without their 

permission. Hylan and Shaevel have distributed and profited from these phantom debts despite 

receiving ample notice that the consumers did not actually owe them. 

15. The Worldwide Defendants have collected on phantom debts, including many 

obtained from Hylan. The Worldwide Defendants have also received ample notice that 

consumers did not actually owe them. To coerce consumers into paying the fake or 

unauthorized debts, the Worldwide Defendants have made unlawful threats to harass consumers’ 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 6 of 24 

friends and family members and failed to provide consumers with statutorily required notices of 

how to dispute the debts. 

Creation of the Phantom Debts 

16. Consumer debts that have been charged-off by the original creditors are often sold 

to third parties for collection or sale to other collectors. Typically, the creditor or seller bundles 

debts into what they call “debt portfolios.” The portfolios are typically spreadsheets with details 

about the consumers and their alleged debts. 

17. Since no later than 2014, a person named Joel Tucker has sold debt portfolios that 

he either fabricated or that consisted of purported debts that consumers did not legitimately owe. 

Tucker has marketed counterfeit debts as owed to a number of different entities. Tucker has 

also distributed “debts” from loans that were foisted on consumers without their permission, 

which he packaged together with other purported debts under the name “Bahamas Marketing 

Group” or “BMG”. Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission sued Tucker for selling phantom debt 

in 2016. See FTC v. Tucker et al., No. 2:16-cv-02816 (D. Kan. filed Dec. 16, 2016). On 

September 20, 2017, the court in that case found that Tucker had, “marketed, distributed and sold 

counterfeit debt portfolios that purported to represent loans made by a variety of purported 

originators,” in contravention of Section 5 of the FTC Act. FTC v. Tucker, No. 2:16-cv-02816 

(D. Kan. Sept. 20, 2017), ECF No. 69 at *3. 

18. Prior to 2016, Tucker had access to sensitive consumer information for millions 

of consumers. This information included consumers’ bank account numbers, social security 

numbers, and other sensitive personal information. Tucker used this information to create or 

cause to be created fake debt portfolios by matching consumers’ personal information to 

fabricated payday loan debts. Tucker, either directly or through entities under his control, then 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 7 of 24 

sold these portfolios of counterfeit debt in spreadsheet format. The portfolios list consumer 

names and contact information along with social security numbers and financial account 

information. For each consumer identified, the portfolios provide detailed, but fabricated, 

information about purported payday loans, such as alleged original loan amounts, loan dates, 

repayment histories, and unpaid balances. 

19. In addition, Tucker, through entities he controlled, obtained and sold unauthorized 

payday loan debts. Tucker first sold purported payday loan leads to lenders associated with 

him. In many instances, these lenders then issued “loans” to consumers identified in the leads 

without their permission, a practice referred to as “autofunding.” The lenders then attempted to 

withdraw money from consumers’ bank accounts as “finance charges” without consumers’ 

consent. When consumers denied the attempted debits, the lenders transferred the unauthorized 

loans to Tucker as “debts.” In 2014, the FTC and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(“CFPB”) filed suits against these purported lenders. FTC v. CWB Services, et al., 

4:14-cv-00783 (W.D. Mo.) and CFPB v. Moseley, et al., 4:14-cv-00789 (W.D. Mo.). Tucker, 

either directly or through entities under his control, sold these debts to debt brokers, including 

Defendant Hylan. 

Hylan Repeatedly Purchases and Distributes the Phantom Debts for Collection 

20. Hylan has operated as a debt broker since at least March 2011. Among other 

things, Hylan has purchased and sold debt portfolios. Hylan has also placed debt for collection 

with third parties, including the Worldwide Defendants. 

21. Starting no later than 2014, Hylan began purchasing phantom debt portfolios from 

entities controlled by Tucker, through an intermediary, Hirsh Mohindra. In 2016, the FTC sued 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 8 of 24 

Mohindra for selling counterfeit debt portfolios. FTC v. Stark Law, LLC, et al., No. 

1:16-cv-3463 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 21, 2016). 

22. On October 27, 2017, Mohindra agreed to entry of a stipulated judgment that, 

among other things, banned him from the debt collection industry and imposed a $47,220,491 

judgment. FTC v. Stark Law, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-3463 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2017), at *7, *9. 

23. Hylan does not collect on phantom portfolios directly. Instead, it “places” them 

with debt-collection agencies, including the Worldwide Defendants. It also sells phantom debt 

to other brokers or collectors. 

24. Hylan purchases, sells, and places these portfolios despite having notice that 

consumers do not owe the purported debts. For example, by the fall of 2014, a Hylan employee 

was raising issues internally about the accuracy and veracity of the information contained in the 

portfolios. And by November 2014, Hylan and its owner, Defendant Andrew Shaevel began 

receiving from collection agencies reports of a high number of consumer complaints stating that 

consumers did not owe the alleged debts. From their discussions with Mohindra, the federal 

government enforcement actions against Mohindra, CWB Services, and Moseley, and 

information from debt buyers, Hylan and Shaevel had notice that they were disseminating 

phantom debts. 

25. In a November 2014 email to Mohindra regarding a debt portfolio that originated 

from Tucker, Shaevel stated, “There is a MAJOR problem with data on this file. Either there 

was a data transformation error or there is major FRAUD with this file. [A Hylan employee] 

discovered that there are debtors with the same name and address that have different SSNs, same 

bank accounts but different names and/or SSN’s. THIS IS NOT KOSHER!” Mohindra 

assured Shaevel that, “Joel [Tucker] would not and is not frauding over these amounts,” and one 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 9 of 24 

of Mohindra’s employees blamed consumers who input incorrect Social Security numbers during 

the application process. The employee added that Tucker was willing to replace the $4.79 

million of disputed loans. Shaevel remained unconvinced, stating, “We understand the business 

and the data. These problems are not consistent with the data we have received in the last 

$500m of payday loans. This is a problem that needs to be fixed.” After Mohindra told 

Shaevel that he would provide him with “replacement files” and assured him that it was “a non 

issu[e],” Shaevel replied “Ok thanks!” Hylan continued to purchase from Mohindra, and sell to 

third parties, debts originating from Joel Tucker. 

26. Likewise, in a November 2014 email, a collection agency informed Shaevel that a 

“[c]onsiderable number of people are saying that they never received the loan and we were able 

to get a few bank statements showing that there was no deposit matching the loan amount 

anywhere near the loan date.” 

27. In January 2016, Hylan emailed Mohindra an attachment listing 74 alleged 

debtors who had signed sworn affidavits denying that they owed the debts. Shaevel was copied 

on the email. Nevertheless, Hylan continued to sell and place portfolios for collection with third 

parties. 

28. Hylan and Shaevel also received notice that they had purchased and were selling 

autofunded “debts.” In February 2015, Shaevel received an email with a news article describing 

the FTC and CFPB’s actions against the companies engaged in autofunding. The article 

described how the purported lenders in Tucker portfolios “used information from online loan 

shopping sites to deposit loans in unwitting consumers’ accounts and then repeatedly dinged 

them for finance charges.” The article further reported, “When people disputed the debits with 

their banks, the lenders fabricated documents that purported to show consumers had agreed to 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 10 of 24 

the loans.” Finally, the article noted that many consumers that tried to stop the unauthorized 

charges “were hounded by debt collectors.” Shaevel forwarded the email to Mohindra with the 

added text “FYI. This might be an issue.” 

29. Within the debt collection industry, BMG debts were notoriously problematic. 

On April 7, 2015, a collection agency forwarded to a Hylan employee an email that it had 

received from another debt seller who was attempting to sell BMG debts. The email stated in 

part, “At the end of last nights convo I said if you wanted squeaky clean BMG with legit chain 

[of title] I said go to Hylan. After speaking with a few companies this morning who have bought 

this BMG i market and Hylans BMG i hear that it does come with the same issues because the 

issues lie in the underwriting process from BMG directly and not the companies selling it. ... 

With BMG you always have to expect issues but if you have experience with BMG these will be 

normal issues that your agencies are already familiar with.” Shortly after receiving it, the Hylan 

employee forwarded the email to Shaevel with the comment, “Wow,” specifically flagging the 

issue for him. The email’s reference to “issues [] in the underwriting process” was yet another 

warning that Tucker-related debts were tainted at the source. 

30. On June 17, 2015, counsel for the Receiver in the FTC v. CWB Services matter 

mailed Hylan a copy of the preliminary injunction in that case. In an accompanying cover 

letter, counsel for the Receiver identified by name 18 “Receivership Defendants” that had 

originated autofunded loans and noted that a third-party debt collection agency “has informed the 

Receiver’s counsel one or more consumer loan portfolios of alleged debt owed to [one of the 

receivership defendants] were purchased from Hylan Asset Management, LLC. The FTC 

contests the validity of the underlying loans insofar as they originated without consumer consent. 

Accordingly, the Receiver has directed the collection of any loan balances and the sale of any 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 11 of 24 

loan portfolios immediately cease. . . . Furthermore, Hylan Asset Management, LLC is directed 

to immediately cease the sale of any loans allegedly originated by any of the Receivership 

Defendants.” He also demanded that Hylan provide him, “with an accounting of any loan or 

loan portfolio containing loans originated by any of the Receivership Defendants. . . .” 

31. Despite these reports and voluminous complaints from consumers asserting that 

they did not actually owe the debts, Hylan and Shaevel did not stop purchasing, selling, and 

placing Tucker portfolios for collection. Nor did they recall Tucker portfolios that they had 

already placed, or tell purchasers of these portfolios that they contained phantom debt. 

32. In numerous instances, using information in debt portfolios marketed, distributed, 

sold, and placed by Hylan and Shaevel, debt collectors have contacted these consumers, 

demanded payment, and successfully induced consumers to pay the purported debts. In many 

instances, the debts in these portfolios were counterfeit or from “autofunded” loans. 

33. Consumers cannot reasonably avoid collection on these phantom portfolios. 

Consumers are not aware that their personal information has been misappropriated and used to 

create a counterfeit debt or an unauthorized loan. From the portfolios, debt collectors, including 

the Worldwide Defendants, obtain consumers’ private personal information and sensitive 

financial information, such as Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, and names of 

references. Debt collectors recite such information to consumers to convince them that the 

purported loan is legitimate or that the collectors will be able to coerce the consumers to pay, 

even if they do not legitimately owe the loan. Using this detailed information, collectors 

intimidated consumers into paying the purported debts. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 12 of 24 

The Worldwide Defendants’ Illegal Collection Practices 

34. In many instances, Hylan placed debts that were counterfeit or from unauthorized 

loans for collection with the Worldwide Defendants. 

35. The Worldwide Defendants have operated as a debt collection enterprise since at 

least 2011. The Worldwide Defendants call consumers and demand payment for purported 

debts arising from payday loans purportedly taken out several years ago. But many of these 

debts simply do not exist, or are not owed by the consumers whom these Defendants contact. 

36. As part of their attempt to deceive and intimidate consumers into paying these 

debts, the Worldwide Defendants have often refused to provide consumers with critical 

information about the debts. And they fail to send statutorily required validation notices that 

would also provide consumers with information about how to dispute the debts – something 

critically important here, where the consumers do not actually owe the debts. In addition, these 

Defendants have threatened to harass consumers’ friends and family members. 

Attempts to Collect Fake or Unauthorized Debts 

37. In numerous instances, since at least 2014, the Worldwide Defendants have 

attempted to collect money on debts that were either fake or from loans that were not authorized 

by the consumers. 

38. In many of these instances, the Worldwide Defendants have claimed that 

consumers owed a debt arising from a payday loan. They often assert that the underlying loan 

was several hundred dollars, and that the debt includes this amount plus hundreds of dollars from 

interest or fees. In some cases, the Worldwide Defendants state that the loan was from 2010, 

2011, 2012, or 2013. And in other cases, they fail to provide a date for when the purported loan 

was taken out. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 13 of 24 

39. But many of the consumers that the Worldwide Defendants contact have never 

taken out a payday loan, do not owe any outstanding debts, or were the victims of an the 

autofunded loan scam. 

40. In numerous instances, consumers have asked for additional information or have 

explained to the Worldwide Defendants that they do not owe the purported debts. The 

Worldwide Defendants often respond to these inquiries by reciting consumers’ personal 

information—including addresses, social security numbers, employment history, and banking 

information—in an attempt to make the debt appear legitimate or represent that they can collect 

on the debt regardless of its validity. 

41. The Worldwide Defendants continued to collect on the debts even after 

consumers told them that they had never heard of the lenders, did not owe debts, and in some 

cases provided bank statements and other records to prove it. Worldwide Processing also was 

the top generator of Better Business Bureau consumer complaints in its geographical region, 

many of which contained statements by consumers that they did not owe the alleged debts. The 

Better Business Bureau generally forwarded these complaints to Worldwide Processing, as did 

the New York Attorney General, who received similar complaints. Even after acknowledging 

receipt of numerous consumer complaints, Defendants continued to collect on the fake and 

autofunded debts and failed to make any meaningful attempt to verify the authenticity of the 

debts. 

Unlawful Threats to Contact Third Parties 

42. In numerous instances, to pressure consumers into paying the purported debts, the 

Worldwide Defendants have threatened to contact consumers’ family members or other third 

parties—even after the Worldwide Defendants have already spoken with the consumer or 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 14 of 24 

otherwise verified the consumer’s location information. In many of these instances, the 

Worldwide Defendants have sent pre-recorded messages from “Sarah” that state the call “is 

regarding our location and tracing efforts” for the purported debtor. The messages claim that “if 

we cannot verify this information through you, the law allows us to contact all references on 

file.” In fact, the FDCPA limits the parties that a debt collector may contact, particularly when 

the collector has already obtained location information about the consumer, and the law does not 

give a debt collector carte blanche to contact “all references on file.” 

Unlawful Contacts with Third Parties 

43. In numerous instances, the Worldwide Defendants have communicated with third 

parties where they already possessed contact information for the consumer, including the 

consumer’s place of abode, telephone number, or place of employment. 

Failure to Provide Statutorily Required 

Disclosures and Notices 

44. In numerous instances, in initial calls to consumers, the Worldwide Defendants’ 

collectors have not disclosed that the call is coming from a debt collector who is attempting to 

collect a debt from the consumer and that any information obtained from the consumer will be 

used for that purpose. 

45. In numerous instances, in subsequent communications with consumers, the 

Worldwide Defendants’ collectors have failed to disclose that they are debt collectors. 

46. In numerous instances, the Worldwide Defendants also have failed to provide 

consumers with a statutorily required notice, either orally in their initial communication with the 

consumer or in writing within five days of the initial oral communication, setting forth the 

following: (1) the amount of the alleged debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the 

purported debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer disputes the debt within 30 

14 
 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 15 of 24 

days, the debt will be assumed valid; (4) a statement that if the consumer disputes all or part of 

the debt in writing within 30 days, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt and mail 

it to the consumer; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the 

30-day period, the debt collector will provide the name and address of the original creditor, if 

different from the current creditor. 

47. In numerous instances, the Worldwide Defendants have refused to provide 

consumers with this notice. Indeed, the Worldwide Defendants did not provide this notice even 

when consumers requested it. As a result, consumers have been unable to exercise their rights 

under the FDCPA. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

48. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

49. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

50. Acts or practices are unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act if they cause or are 

likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid 

themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

15 U.S.C. § 45(n). 

Count I by Plaintiff FTC 

Means and Instrumentalities to Mislead 

(Against Hylan Asset Management, LLC and Andrew Shaevel) 

51. In numerous instances, in connection with their marketing, distribution, sale, and 

placement of purported payday loan debt portfolios, Defendants have represented, directly or 

indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers listed in those portfolios owe unpaid 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 16 of 24 

payday loan debts, and that those who obtain the portfolios through Defendants have the right to 

collect debts listed in the portfolios. 

52. In truth and in fact, consumers listed in those portfolios that Defendants have 

marketed, distributed, placed, and sold did not owe the purported debts, and collectors that 

obtained those portfolios did not have the right to collect those purported debts. 

53. By making the representations in Paragraph 51, Defendants placed in the hands of 

debt collectors the means and instrumentalities by and through which they may mislead 

consumers regarding their debt obligations. 

54. Therefore, Defendants’ representations, as set forth in Paragraph 51 of this 

Complaint are false or misleading, and constitute deceptive acts and practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count II by Plaintiff FTC 

Distribution of Counterfeit or Unauthorized Debts for Collection 

(Against Hylan Asset Management, LLC and Andrew Shaevel) 

55. In numerous instances, Defendants have distributed, placed for collection, and 

sold debts that were counterfeit or from unauthorized loans. 

56. Defendants’ actions cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers 

that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing 

benefits to consumers or competition. 

57. Therefore, Defendants' actions as described in paragraph 55 above constitute 

unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and (n). 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 17 of 24 

Count III by Plaintiff FTC 

False or Unsubstantiated Representations That Consumers Owe Debts 

(Against Worldwide Processing Group, LLC and Frank A. Ungaro, Jr.) 

58. In numerous instances, in connection with the collection of purported consumer 

debt, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

a. a consumer is delinquent on a debt that Defendants have the authority to 

collect; or 

b. the consumer has a legal obligation to pay Defendants. 

59. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made the 

representations set forth in Paragraph 58 of this Complaint, these representations have been false, 

or Defendants have not had a reasonable basis for the representations at the time Defendants 

made them. 

60. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 58 of this 

Complaint are false or misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count IV by Plaintiff FTC 

False or Misleading Representations Regarding Contacts 

with Consumers’ Friends and Families 

(Against Worldwide Processing Group, LLC and Frank A. Ungaro, Jr.) 

61. In numerous instances, in connection with the collection of purported consumer 

debts, Defendants have represented to consumers, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that the law allows them to contact third parties without limitation. 

62. In truth and in fact, the FDCPA strictly limits the circumstances under which a 

debt collector may contact a third party, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692b, 1692c(b). 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 18 of 24 

63. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 61 of this 

Complaint are false or misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA 

64. In 1977, Congress passed the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, which became 

effective on March 20, 1978, and has been in force since that date. Under Section 814 of the 

FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692l, a violation of the FDCPA is deemed an unfair or deceptive act or 

practice in violation of the FTC Act. Further, the FTC is authorized to use all of its functions 

and powers under the FTC Act to enforce compliance with the FDCPA. 

65. Throughout this Complaint, the term “consumer,” as defined in Section 803(3) of 

the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3), means “any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to 

pay any debt.” 

66. Throughout this Complaint, the term “debt,” as defined in Section 803(5) of the 

FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), means “any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay 

money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are 

the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether 

or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.” 

67. Throughout this Complaint, the term “location information,” as defined in Section 

803(7) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(7), means “a consumer’s place of abode and his 

telephone number at such place, or his place of employment.” 

18 
 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 19 of 24 

Count V by Plaintiff FTC 

Unlawful Communications with Third Parties 

(Against Worldwide Processing Group, LLC and Frank A. Ungaro, Jr.) 

68. As described in Paragraph 43, in numerous instances, in connection with the 

collection of debts, Defendants have communicated with persons other than the consumer, the 

consumer’s attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, 

the attorney of the creditor, the attorney of the debt collector, the consumer’s spouse, parent (if 

the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator for purposes other than acquiring 

location information about the consumer, without having obtained directly the prior consent of 

the consumer or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, and when not 

reasonably necessary to effectuate a post judgment judicial remedy, in violation of Section 

805(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). 

Count VI by Plaintiff FTC 

False, Deceptive, or Misleading Representations to Consumers 

(Against Worldwide Processing Group, LLC and Frank A. Ungaro, Jr.) 

69. In numerous instances, in connection with the collection of debts, Defendants 

have, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, used false, deceptive, or misleading 

representations or means, in violation of Section 807 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, 

including, but not limited to: 

a. falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, in 

violation of Section 807(2)(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(a); 

b. threatening to take an action that Defendants cannot legally take, such as 

contacting third parties for reasons other than confirming or correcting 

location information, in violation of Section 807(5) of the FDCPA, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e(5); 

19 
 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 20 of 24 

c. using false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to 

collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer, in 

violation of Section 807(10) of the FDCPA, 15U.S.C. § 1692e(10); and 

d. failing to disclose in the initial communication with a consumer that 

Defendants are debt collectors attempting to collect a debt and that any 

information obtained will be used for that purpose, or failing to disclose in 

subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt 

collector, in violation of Section 807(11) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692e(11). 

Count VII by Plaintiff FTC 

Failure to Provide Statutorily Required Notice 

(Against Worldwide Processing Group, LLC and Frank A. Ungaro, Jr.) 

70. In numerous instances, in connection with the collection of debts, Defendants 

have failed to provide consumers, either in the initial communication or a written notice sent 

within five days after the initial communication, with the information required by Section 809(a) 

of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), including information about the debt and consumers’ 

rights to dispute the debt. 

VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK STATE LAW 

Count VIII by Plaintiff State of New York 

Repeated Fraudulent or Illegal Acts 

(Against All Defendants) 

71. New York Executive Law § 63(12) empowers the Attorney General to seek 

restitution and injunctive relief when any person or business entity has engaged in repeated 

fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrates persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying 

on, conducting, or transaction of business. 

20 
 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 21 of 24 

72. Defendants have engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise 

demonstrated persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting, or transaction of their 

debt collection business for purposes of Executive Law § 63(12). 

Count IX by Plaintiff State of New York 

Deceptive Acts or Practices 

(Against All Defendants) 

73. New York General Business Law § 349 provides that “[d]eceptive acts or 

practices in the conduct of any business [...] in this state are hereby declared unlawful.” 

74. In numerous instances, Defendants have violated New York General Business 

Law § 349 by engaging in deceptive acts or practices in connection with conducting their debt 

collection business. 

Count X by Plaintiff State of New York 

Violation of New York State Debt Collection Law 

(Against All Defendants) 

75. New York General Business Law § 601 sets forth a list of prohibited debt 

collection practices, including: 

a. disclosing or threatening to disclose information affecting the debtor’s 

reputation for credit worthiness with knowledge or reason to know that the 

information is false (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 601(3)); 

b. disclosing or threatening to disclose information concerning the existence 

of a debt known to be disputed by the debtor without disclosing that fact 

(N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 601(5)); 

c. claiming, or attempting or threatening to enforce a right with knowledge 

or reason to know that the right does not exist (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 

601(8)). 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 22 of 24 

76. In numerous instances, Defendants have violated New York General Business 

Law § 601 by engaging in prohibited debt collection practices under that statute. 

CONSUMER INJURY 

77. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result 

of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the FDCPA, New York Executive Law § 63(12), and 

New York General Business Law Articles 22-A and 29-H. In addition, Defendants have been 

unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this 

Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm 

the public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

78. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and Section 814(a) of the 

FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692l(a), empower this Court to grant injunctive and such other relief as 

the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations of any provision of law enforced 

by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, 

including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any violation of any provision of law 

enforced by the FTC. 

79. New York Executive Law § 63(12) empowers the Attorney General to seek 

injunctive relief, restitution, damages, disgorgement, and other relief when any person or 

business entity has engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts, or has otherwise demonstrated 

persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting, or transaction of business. New 

York General Business Law § 349 prohibits deceptive business practices and empowers the 

Attorney General to seek injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties when violations occur. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 23 of 24 

General Business Law Article 29-H, § 602 empowers the Attorney General to bring an action to 

restrain any violation of Article 29-H, New York’s Debt Collection Procedures. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiffs FTC and the State of New York, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), Section 814(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692l(a), New York 

Executive Law § 63(12), and New York General Business Law §§ 349, 350-d, and 602(2), and 

the Court’s own equitable powers, request that the Court: 

A. Award Plaintiffs such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be 

necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency of this action and to 

preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including, but not limited to, temporary and 

preliminary injunctions with ancillary equitable relief. 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act, the 

FDCPA, New York General Business Law Articles 22-A and 29-H, and New York Executive 

Law § 63(12) by Defendants; 

C. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers 

resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the FDCPA, New York General Business 

Law Articles 22-A and 29-H, and New York Executive Law § 63(12), including, but not limited 

to, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; 

D. Pursuant to New York General Business Law § 350-d, impose a civil penalty of 

$5,000 for each violation of New York General Business Law Article 22-A; and 

E. Award Plaintiffs the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

23 
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD 

Attorney General of the State of New York 

CHRISTOPHER 

~ 

L. BOYD 

Assistant Attorney General 

350 Main Street, Suite 300A 

Buffalo, NY 14202 

P: (716) 853-8457 

F: (716) 853-8414 

E: Christopher.Boyd@ag.ny.gov 

Attorney for Plaintif.fState of New York 

24 

Respectfully submitted, 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

G~ 

MICHAEL WHITE 

MATTHEW J. WILSHIRE 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mailstop CC-10232 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

P: (202) 326-3196 (White), (202) 326-2976 

(Wilshire) 

F: (202) 326-3768 

E: mwhitel@ftc.gov; mwilshire@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintif.f Federal Trade Commission 

Case 1:18-cv-00710-LJV Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 24 of 24