An elderly couple got a pay-day loan with an annual interest rate of 365%. Seriously. The Attorney General (AG) sought to investigate the loan under Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Consumer Protection Act. After the lender Tulips, a Delaware company, ignored numerous orders to provide information, including an administrative investigative subpoena, the AG obtained a court order to compel compliance. Tulips challenged the jurisdiction of a Colorado court to enforce a subpoena served out-of-state on an out-of-state entity. The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena. The court of appeals disagreed on two grounds: 1) the legislature authorized the AG to take reasonable actions to fulfill its statutory duties, and 2) an administrative subpoena is not limited like a judicial subpoena under CRCP 45. The subpoena was enforceable.
Tag Archives: Loans or Lending
State ex. rel. John Suthers, Attorney General and Laura Udis, Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code, v. Tulips Investments, LLC, d/b/a CashBanc, and David Blevins, 2012COA206 (November 21, 2012)
Hard money lenders are private investment companies that offer shorter term loans secured by real property when traditional commercial real estate loans are not available from banking institutions. Here, a hard money lender, CCI, insured against its own losses for want of fidelity by CCI’s own officers, with a fidelity bond from Lloyds. CCI officers allegedly committed fraud in attracting investors to invest in CCI, which made hard money loans to commercial real estate borrowers. Following CCI’s bankruptcy, investors sued Lloyds on behalf of CCI, and CCI itself, to recover losses. Lloyds claimed its policy did not cover the investors’ losses. The court of appeals agreed. Indirect losses to investors are protected by liability policies, not fidelity bonds. Because Lloyds issued a fidelity bond to protect CCI directly, it did not cover indirect losses by investors.