Post on 19-Sep-2019
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NEWOPP ENTERPRISES, INC., an active Florida Profit corporation; NEW OPPORTUNITY N.P.O INC., an inactive Florida Non Profit corporation; HENRY ROGER PUIG a/k/a HENRY ROGER, individually and as owner and director ofNEWOPP ENTERPRISES, INC. and individually and as owner and president of NEW OPPORTUNITY N.P.O INC. and d/b/a GENESIS LOAN SOLUTIONS; RED WASH CORP., an active Florida Profit corporation; RICARDO RESINO, individually and as owner, president and director of RED WASH CORP.; MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION FINANCIERA INC, a dissolved Florida Profit corporation; and ELOISA PARDO GALLARDO a/k/a ELOISA PARDO, individually and as owner and president of MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION FINANCIERA INC.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------~/
CASE NO.: 12-04367 DIVISION: 14
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER STATUTORY RELIEF
Plaintiff, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ("Attorney General") sues NEWOPP ENTERPRISES,
INC., a Florida profit corporation; NEW OPPORTUNITY N.P.O INC., a Florida non-profit
corporation; HENRY ROGER PUIG a/k/a HENRY ROGER, individually and as owner and
director of NEWOPP ENTERPRISES, INC., individually and as owner and ·president of NEW
OPPORTUNITY N.P.O INC. and individually doing business as GENESIS LOAN SOLUTIONS;
RED WASH CORP., a Florida profit corporation; RICARDO RESINO, individually and as
owner, president and director of RED WASH CORP.; MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION
FINANCIERA INC, a dissolved Florida profit corporation and ELOISA PARDO, individually
and as president and owner of MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION FINANCIERA INC (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Defendants" or "New Opportunity") and alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action for monetary, injunctive, and other equitable and statutory relief,
brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II,
Florida Statutes.
2. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 501, Part II,
Florida Statutes. The acts or practices alleged herein occurred in the conduct of "trade or
commerce" as defined in§ 501.203(8), Florida Statutes.
3. The Office of the Attorney General seeks relief in an amount greater than Fifteen
Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys fees.
4. The violations alleged herein affect more than one judicial circuit of the State of
Florida.
5. Venue is proper in this court as statutory violations have occurred and continue to
occur within and without Broward County, Florida.
6. All other conditions precedent to this action have occurred.
2
THE PARTIES
7. Plaintiff is an enforcing authority of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes, and is
authorized to bring this action and to seek injunctive and other statutory relief pursuant thereto.
8. Plaintiff has conducted an investigation of the matters alleged herein, and Attorney
General Pam Bondi has determined that this enforcement action serves the public interest. A copy
of the Determination of Public Interest is incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.
9. At all times material hereto, Defendant NEWOPP ENTERPRISES, INC.
(hereinafter referred to as "NEWOPP") is and has been an active Florida Profit corporation with
its principal place of business in Miami Lakes, Florida and currently has a principal and mailing
address of 14750 NW 77th Ct., Suite 316, Miami Lakes, FL 33016.
10. Defendant HENRY ROGER PUIG a/k/a HENRY ROGER (hereinafter referred to
as "ROGER") is an individual sui generis residing in the State of Florida, upon information and
belief, at the address of 18938 SW 1th St., Pembroke Pines, FL 33029.
11. Defendant ROGER is an owner, director, and principal day-to-day manager of
NEWOPP and controls the acts and practices of said entity. He is individually liable for the
misconduct ofNEWOPP as a primary participant in the deceptive acts and practices alleged herein
and as a person with the authority to control same.
12. Defendant ROGER further does business under the fictitious name of Genesis Loan
Solutions, co-owned by himself and Defendant RED WASH CORP.
13. Defendant NEW OPPORTUNITY N.P.O INC. (hereinafter referred to as "NEW
OPP NPO") is and has been a Florida non-profit corporation with its principal place ofbusiness in
Miami Lakes, Florida and with a principal and mailing address of 14750 NW 77t.h Ct., Suite 316,
3
Miami Lakes, FL 33016. According to Florida state corporate records, NEW OPP NPO became
inactive and was administratively dissolved in June 2009 for failure to file an annual report.
14. Defendant ROGER is an owner, president, and principal day-to-day manager of
NEW OPP NPO and controls the acts and practices of said entity. He is individually liable for the
misconduct of NEW OPP NPO as a primary participant in the deceptive acts and practices alleged
herein and as a person with the authority to control same.
15. At all times material hereto, Defendant RED WASH CORP. (hereinafter referred to
as "RED WASH") is and has been an active Florida Profit corporation with its principal place of
business in Miami Lakes, Florida and currently has a principal and mailing address of 8004 NW
1541h St., Suite 117, Miami Lakes, FL 33016.
16. RED WASH conducts business under the fictitious names of Genesis Loan
Solutions, Genesis Solutions, Creditarget and/or Smart Decision.
17. Defendant RICARDO RESINO (hereinafter referred to as "RESINO") is an
individual sui generis residing in the State of Florida at the address of 14531 SW 12th Lane,
Miami, FL 3318.
18. Defendant RESINO is an owner, president, director and principal day-to-day
manager of RED WASH and controls the acts and practices of said entity. He is individually
liable for the misconduct of RED WASH as a primary participant in the deceptive acts and
practices alleged herein and as a person with the authority to control same.
19. At all times material hereto, Defendant MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION
FINANCIERA INC (hereinafter referred to as "MINISTERIO") is and has been an active Florida
profit corporation with its principal place of business in Miami Lakes, Florida and currently has a
principal and mailing address of 8004 NW 154th St., Suite 313, Miami Lakes, FL 33016.
4
According to Florida state corporate records, MINISTERIO became inactive and was voluntarily
dissolved on February 6, 2012.
20. Defendant ELOISA PARDO GALLARDO alk/a ELOISA PARDO (hereinafter
referred to as "PARDO") is an individual sui generis residing in the State of Florida, upon
information and belief, at the address of 12009 SW 31st Ct., Miramar, FL 33025.
21. Defendant PARDO is president of MINISTERIO and controls the acts and
practices of said entity. She is individually liable for the· misconduct of MINISTERIO as a
primary participant in the deceptive acts and practices alleged herein and as a person with the
authority to control same.
22. At all times material, the Defendants have conducted business in Florida and have
advertised and marketed to residents of the state of Florida. Upon information and belief,
Defendants RESINO, PARDO, RED WASH and MINISTERIO split from the other named
Defendants in mid 2011 and may be engaged in similar alleged activities via other named and
unnamed entities.
Defendants' Relationship:
23. The corporate defendants acted as a single entity under the banner "New
Opportunity" to systematically engage in numerous fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business
practices in a large-scale debt settlement operation. These practices included, but were not limited
to, unlawfully charging significant advance fees before completing or, in many instances,
commencing performance of its services, falsely representing the success rates of its program, and
· deceptively advertising and promoting its debt settlement program through misrepresentations and
material omissions.
5
24. That the entities are intertwined and act as a single entity is demonstrated, in part,
by the following:
a. The Service Agreement used by New Opportunity to contract services with
consumers states that "THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between NEW
OPPORTUNITY, N.P.O. and/or its affiliates (hereinafter referred to as
"NEW OPPORTUNITY") ... "
b. Defendant ROGER, owner and director of Defendant NEWOPP, represents
himself, on business cards and otherwise, as Director of Operations for New
Opportunity Educacion Financiera.
c. The former name of Defendant NEWOPP was CACF Real Estate, Inc.
CACF Real Estate, Inc. owned a fictitious name of New Opportunity
Realty. New Opportunity Realty operated under the name "New
Opportunity Ministerio De Educacion," which, in turn, showed the exact
same address as both Defendants NEWOPP and NEW OPP NPO (14750
NW 77th Court, Suite 316, Miami Lakes, FL 33016). CACF Real Estate,
Inc. contracted with Global Client Solutions, a company which services
debt settlement entities, to provide settlement accounts for New
Opportunity clients.
d. When consumers signed up for New Opportunity services, they were
requested to make a down payment called a "file initiation fee" to an entity
called "Genesis." Genesis Loan Solutions was a fictitious name owned
jointly by Defendants ROGER and RED WASH, a fictitious name which
was cancelled on or about April 14, 2011 and replaced with the fictitious
6
name "Genesis Solutions." Portions of monies paid to Genesis/RED
WASH for file initiation were subsequently redistributed back to
Defendants ROGER (individually or through an entity known as Henry
Roger P.A.), PARDO and NEWOPP.
e. Defendant RED WASH employed the same principal address as Defendant
MINISTERIO (RED WASH is or was in Suite 117, while MINISTERIO is
or was in Suite 313, both at 8004 NW 154 Street, Miami Lakes, FL).
f. There have been instances in which refunds were made from Defendant
NEWOPP's business account after the consumer had made their deposits in
the name of Genesis, with said checks deposited into Defendant RED
WASH's account. When refunds were issued, there were instances in
which consumers were requested to sign a general release for the benefit of
"Genesis Solutions & New Opportunity ('Released Parties')."
g. Defendant RESINO, president and director of Defendant RED WASH,
represented himself as a "debt analyst" for "New Opportunity, Inc."
Course of Conduct:
25. Defendants, upon information and belief, employed a scheme to defraud designed
to entice debt-ridden consumers into their program based on false promises to settle consumers'
debts for approximately one third of the amount owed.
26. Rather than offering a program to enable consumers to repay their entire
indebtedness on a payment plan, New Opportunity purportedly offered a method of paying debts
off, typically in a lump sum, at an amount significantly less than the total debt. The debt
7
settlement plan operated on the premise that the consumer's default status would induce creditors
to accept a settlement for less than the amount owed.
27. During enrollment, New Opportunity either expressly instructed, or indirectly
encouraged, consumers to stop paying their creditors, regardless of whether they were current on
their obligations.
28. Consumers were instead directed to authorize New Opportunity to initiate a
procedure whereby funds were taken on a monthly basis from consumers' personal bank accounts
and direct-deposited into a dedicated account held by an independent entity, Global Client
Solutions (hereinafter "Global").
29. New Opportunity also arranged the creation of the Global account. The purported
purpose of the Global account (sometimes referred to in New Opportunity documents as an
"Attorney - Trust Debt Resolution" account, other times as a ''personal savings account") was to
accumulate funds for future creditor settlements.
30. Contrary to this purported purpose, however, New Opportunity used the Global
account as its own private fund from which it debited significant fees and expenses for its own
use.
31. Pursuant to the paperwork consumers signed with Global, New Opportunity was
the "sponsor" of the Global account. As a "sponsor", New Opportunity made debits from the
account without any obligation on the part of Global to seek additional authorization from the
consumer.
32. New Opportunity took so much out in undisclosed (or insufficiently disclosed) fees
and costs that the Global accounts almost never accumulated sufficient funds to support the
promised settlements.
8
33. In the event that sufficient funds were somehow accumulated, New Opportunity
was the entity which then directed Global to make the payment from the Global account to the
consumer's creditor(s).
Advertisements and Solicitations:
34. Defendants advertised their services primarily over Christian Spanish language
radio and further represented themselves to be a "faith-based Christian Ministry." The purpose of
this "wolf-in-sheep's clothing" fa<;ade was to falsely engender trust in their intended targets.
35. Said advertisements conveyed the false impression that the recently enacted Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter "the Act") required banks
and other lenders to negotiate reductions in consumers' debts. They represented, in part:
a. that the Act allows consumers who are facing financial difficulties to reduce
their debts 80-90%;
b. that the Act requires banks to explain consumer alternatives that would
assist them in getting out of debt;
c. that the Act allows consumers to negotiate the forgiveness of interest and
late fees;
d. that the Act allows consumers to negotiate the elimination of their entire
debt; and
e. that the Act could result in the principle amount of borrowed money being
substantially reduced.
36. Said advertisements further misrepresented the costs of New Opportunity services,
stating that "Henry Roger. . .is offering to help consumers for free ("Totalmente de manera
gratuita").
9
37. The announcer on the New Opportunity broadcasts exclaims how wonderful it
would be for consumers to eliminate all of their debt and release all of the stress caused by
financial burdens and otherwise paints a picture of a life free of debt with no adverse
consequences.
38. Defendant ROGER re-enforced the representation that New Opportunity will
secure gross reductions of consumers' unsecured debt by providing "mathematical examples" on
these broadcasts, stating for instance, that if a consumer has a $10,000.00 credit card balance,
he/she might end up paying just $1,000.00.
39. Defendants further stated that New Opportunity could restore or Improve
consumers' credit rating.
40. "New Opportunity'' advertisements and broadcasts requested consumers either to
make an appointment to see company representatives or to attend "seminars" relating to debt
reduction or financial counseling.
Internet Page Representations:
41. Defendants maintained a website under the name ofNew Opportunity Educacion
Financiera at http://O-deudas.com/index.php. Said website, which urges consumers to "reestablish
your credit," contains representations, in Spanish, similar to those presented on radio broadcasts.
They include, but are not limited to, the following (paraphrased for translation):
a. the use of New Opportunity services will result in the payment of less
money and will end the nightmare of consumers' debts;
b. the use of New Opportunity services will result in lower monthly payments,
lowering same by as much as 70%;
c. New Opportunity currently averages a 65-85% reduction in clients' debts;
10
d. New Opportunity can arrange for a consumer to have a single monthly
payment, freeing the consumer from different dates and methods of
payment;
e. New Opportunity has "an extensive network of resources;"
f New Opportunity can achieve for a consumer a release of their debts in
months;
g. the Bank is not your friend;
h. New Opportunity works with affiliate organizations that include legal
representation to construct a customized and effective plan to help their
clients reach their financial goals;
1. differences between New Opportunity and other services include a fast
cancellation of your debt and an elimination of interest rates;
J. ~ew Opportunity protects clients from creditors and unjust credit bureaus;
k. New Opportunity will rehabilitate your credit;
I. the negotiation process begins when the fee has been paid to open your
account;
m. in the majority of cases, creditors will not agree, when dealing directly with
the consumer, to lower the consumer's debt. They know that the majority
of people will yield to their pressure and threats. As a third party, New
Opportunity can achieve better results; and
n. by completing our program, your credit rating will probably be enriched or
raised.
11
The above representations were either completely false or gross exaggerations of New
Opportunity's ability to assist the consumer with the reduction of their debts.
In-Person Seminars and Meetings:
42. At "New Opportunity" seminars, presentations were made by Defendants ROGER,
PARDO and/or RESINO. The presentations were made in Spanish and often included slide
shows.
43. Among the representations made to consumers by Defendants ROGER, PARDO
and/or Resino were:
a. that banks are the enemies of consumers;
b. that consumers have no realistic ability to negotiate debt reductions with
banks on their own;
c. that, since the credit of the person attending is bad already, no substantial
additional harm will come in discontinuing payments to creditors;
d. that creditors will not negotiate with consumers as long as they are current
in their payments;
e. that it is therefore necessary for consumers to stop making their payments to
creditors;
f. that New Opportunity guarantees that they will secure a reduction of
consumers' debts; and
g. that the reduction would be greater than 50%.
Once again, potential harmful consequences of withholding ongoing payments to creditors were
either completely ignored or substantially downplayed.
12
44. Subsequent to the seminar, though sometimes pursuant to a direct call for an
appointment, Defendants set an appointment for an individual, one-on-one meeting with the
potential customer.
45. Defendants ROGER, PARDO or RESINO participated in these individual sales
presentations.
46. Once again, Defendants ROGER, PARDO or RESINO generally conducted these
meetings in Spanish.
47. The representations made to consumers during these individual presentations
mirrored those made in the radio advertisements and in the seminars. Consumers were informed
that a "realistic" outcome of negotiations will be that they will reduce their debts by approximately
70%. This is and was a substantially false representation, as it is by no means representative of
savings achieved by the typical New Opportunity client.
48. In addition to the representations previously described, consumers were told the
following about the processes to be employed by New Opportunity and about the costs for New
Opportunity services:
a. that the consumer will pay an up-front fee for New Opportunity services;
b. that, in some cases, the up-front fee will be the total fee charged to
consumers for New Opportunity services;
c. that the consumer will have a specific amount debited from their bank
accounts on a monthly basis and placed into a separate dedicated special
purpose account with a third party (Global Client Solutions);
d. that the funds in the Global account will be used to negotiate settlements
with consumers' creditors; and
13
e. that New Opportunity would provide legal representation in cases where
consumer creditors sought to enforce payment on consumer debts.
Failure to Translate or Provide Spanish Language Versions o(Material Documents:
49. In a significant majority of cases, New Opportunity clients spoke and read only
Spanish. Advertisements for New Opportunity services were in Spanish. Promotional materials
for New Opportunity were also presented in Spanish.
50. Despite the fact that advertisements and promotional materials were generated in
Spanish, Spanish translations of the primary service agreement were generally not provided.
Other significant documents, such as New Opportunity waivers and acknowledgments for New
Opportunity were generally provided in English only and not translated verbatim to consumers. In
addition to the primary service agreement, these documents would include, but not be limited to:
a. a five-day cancellation provisions form;
b. a client information form;
c. an acknowledgement of understanding form which includes important New
Opportunity disclaimers and requirements;
d. the Global Client Solutions dedicated account agreement, which details the
terms, conditions and requirements related to the consumer's dedicated
account; and
e. the Program Summary & Schedule of Fees form detailing specific fees and
the allotment of consumer funds.
51. Material terms and conditions of the written contract, therefore, are and were not
effectively disclosed as they were disclosed in a language not understood by the targeted
consumer. Defendants employed consumers' inability to understand the English language as a
14
method by which to include oppressive terms and material disclaimers in their contracts and
agreements. Said practices are and were both deceptive and unconscionable.
52. The New Opportunity contract contains or contained provisions which are not only
inconsistent with New Opportunity verbal representations, but several are diametrically opposed
and contradictory. For example:
Verbal Representation: Contract provision:
Consumers are specifically "New Opportunity has not, nor shall instructed not to make their credit it take any actions to disrupt the card payments - that creditors will contractual relationship between you not negotiate a debt reduction unless and your creditors and New the consumer account is in arrears. Opportunity has not provided any
advice regarding the reduction or termination of payments to your creditors."
Consumers' debts will be reduced "New Opportunity makes no claims by at least 50%. as to any specific amount of savings
that may be affected and settlement We have a 100% success rate. projections are only estimates." Consumers are told that the up-front Client Service and Administrative fee is the only cost ofNew fees are charged, not to exceed 18% Opportunity services and that all of starting balances. In "exceptionally other monies deducted from their complex" cases, additional charges accounts on a monthly basis (and may apply based upon New placed into the Global Client Opportunity hourly rate plus expenses Solutions special purpose account) incurred ... Monies placed in the will be applied to their credit card Special Purpose account can be used settlements. to "satisfy all fees for services
rendered." Verbal representations by New Contract supersedes all verbal Opportunity accurately reflect the representations. contract provisions. New Opportunity will provide legal "Service does not extend to our representation should creditors intervention regarding these types of initiate legal action against issues." consumer. "Service does not include legal
representation in any court oflaw or the preparation of legal documents."
New Opportunity will discuss "This is NOT a loan; nor is it a debt
15
creditor payment options, will negotiate creditor settlements, will pay settlements from funds debited. from your bank account and placed with Global Client Solutions, Inc.
consolidation, debt adjustment, or credit counseling program. New Opportunity will NOT be making monthly payments on my behalf to my creditors."
53. In addition to the blatant contradictions between the verbal and written
representations of the Defendants, numerous material "disclosures" and "disclaimers" were made
solely in English language documents. They include:
a. "Late payments or your decision to terminate payments to your creditor will
result in derogatory credit reporting by your creditors, which may include
reporting accounts as 'charged-of£'"
b. "Derogatory reporting and collection accounts may impair your credit for
up to seven and a half (7) (sic) years from the date of charge off."
c. "Judgments and public records may stay on a credit report longer."
d. "Fees paid to New Opportunity are not refundable and are not transferable
to your bankruptcy case, except for funds held in reserves."
e. "The discharge of indebtedness may be considered taxable income" (and
may have to be reported as such).
The Consequences:
54. After stgnmg with New Opportunity, and as a direct result of Defendants'
representations and advice for debt reduction services, consumers stopped making their credit card
and other payments to creditors.
55. As Defendants instructed consumers not to personally speak to creditor
representatives, consumers repeatedly ignored calls from creditors relating to their accounts.
16
56. Consumer accounts were then sent to collection, legal actions were filed against ·
them, their salaries were garnished and their credit rating was destroyed.
57. As this was occurring, Defendants removed consumers' money from the Global
accounts as additional fees and costs.
58. While the fees and costs deducted are clearly excessive and exorbitant, there are
numerous instances in which nearly all of the money deposited by consumers was appropriated as
fees and costs. Examples of the manner in which Defendants took advantage of the very persons
they claim to assist are as follows:
a. Consumer F.R. retained New Opportunity in December 2009. An up-front
payment of $600 was made. Monthly payments of $335.85 were removed
from his personal account and deposited into a dedicated account to be used
for the negotiation of his debts. By September 2011, he had deposited
approximately $5, 718.60. During this same period, however, Defendants
withdrew, or caused to be withdrawn, "customer" and "transaction" fees
from P.R.'s account, fees which totaled approximately $5,195. No
payments were made to F .R.' s creditors.
b. Consumer L.Q. retained New Opportunity in June 2010. An up-front
payment of $400 was made. Monthly payments of $146 were removed
from his personal account and deposited into a dedicated account to be used
for the negotiation of his debts. By October 2011, he had deposited
approximately $3,112.48. During this same period, however, Defendants
withdrew, or caused to be withdrawn, "customer" and "transaction" fees
17
from L.Q.'s account, fees which totaled approximately $2,226.18. No
payments were made to H.P. 's creditors.
c. Consumer O.F. retained New Opportunity in August of 2010. An up-front
payment of $437 was made. Monthly payments of $202.22 were removed
from his personal account and deposited into a dedicated account to be used
for the negotiation of his debts. By September 2011, he had deposited
approximately $2,600. During this same period, however, Defendants
withdrew, or caused to be withdrawn, "customer" and "transaction" fees
from O.F. 's account, fees which totaled approximately $2,600. No
payments were made to O.F.'s creditors.
59. When consumers finally received formal notice of legal actions and collections
activities, they were uniformly confused as to why creditors had not been contacted by Defendants
for the purpose of negotiating a reduction of their debts.
60. When consumers then contacted Defendants, they were routinely informed that no
such negotiations have occurred because it is "too soon." They were told that there was not
sufficient money in their dedicated accounts to support a negotiated settlement with creditors and
encouraged to be patient and to continue depositing their monthly checks into the dedicated Global
Client Solutions accounts.
61. As their personal checking accounts had been debited monthly for payments into
the New Opportunity dedicated account, consumers could not understand why sufficient funds did
not exist in these dedicated Global accounts to negotiate settlements of at least some of their debts.
They contacted Global to learn the status of the dedicated account, only to find that the accounts
are all but empty and that the Defendants have drained same for additional fees and costs.
18
62. Upon information and belief, these consumers were falsely informed that certain
monies from their accounts had been segregated into a separate account in order to prevent their
creditors from learning the extent of the consumers' assets.
63. When consumers contacted Defendants demanding a refund, they were refused.
Defendants justifY the raiding of the Global accounts by claiming unidentified administrative
service expenses and otherwise citing terms and provisions of the very same agreements that the
consumers were not able to read. The hann suffered by consumers/clients of New Opportunity is
extensive, and it includes:
a. the incurring of significant New Opportunity fees amounting to hundreds or
thousands of dollars for New Opportunity services which were not performed at all
or which were not performed as promised;
b. the negative impact to their credit rating due to the reporting of a delinquent
payment history, charge-offs, or collections, the effects of which impact the
consumer for seven (7) years. This, in tum, could affect the consumer's:
1. ability to purchase or rent a home or other lodging; n. ability to purchase a car;
111. ability to make utility deposits; IV. ability to secure insurance at reasonable rates; v. employment; and
v1. potentially, their ability to secure healthcare.
c. increased debts on accounts unrelated to those "negotiated" by New Opportunity.
A default on one credit card can lead not only to a default interest rate of over 30%,
it can raise interest rates on cards for which there has been no default. This is due
to universal or global default clauses in accounts enabling increased interest rates or
other actions due to late payments of another debt;
19
d. increased debts on accounts "negotiated" by New Opportunity, e.g., default rates
and penalties;
e. lawsuits, garnishments, judgments, and increased collection calls and activities,
once payments are stopped;
f. bankruptcy filings to stop litigation;
g. legal or other professional fees for attorneys, accountants or others to assist
consumers in filing bankruptcy or mitigating the harm suffered by consumer or
damage to consumer's credit, as result of enrollment with New Opportunity;
h. delays in pursuing and obtaining viable and more suitable alternative debt relief
options, including bankruptcy, some of which were deceptively disparaged or
advised against in the sale ofNew Opportunity's program; and
1. potential income tax liability for taxable income due to significant amounts of debt
reduction (more than $600) when settlements are completed.
Said potential harm was either not disclosed at all or inadequately disclosed or explained.
64. Defendants, in their advertisements, seminars and in-person interviews, painted a
deceptive picture not only of their ability to secure debt reductions on behalf of client consumers,
but of the risks associated with their program. If the foregoing risks were disclosed at all, they
were effectively minimized in Defendants' presentations. Minimizing those risks to consumers'
credit and financial future, either affirmatively or through non-disclosure, is and was a material
misrepresentation of their programs' worth and benefit to the consumer.
20
COUNT I DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
CONDUCT VIOLATING CHAPTER 501, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES
65. Paragraphs 1 through 64 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by
reference, as if fully set forth below.
66. As set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64 above, Defendants have engaged in and
continue to engage in a pattern and practice of advertising, promoting and implementing its debt
settlement program through deceptive and unfair acts and practices, specifically including
materially false and deceptive statements regarding:
a. the benefits and effectiveness of the New Opportunity program;
b. the financial risks and consequences of actions recommended by Defendants in the
New Opportunity program;
c. the fees to be charged to the consumer;
d. the terms and conditions of the New Opportunity contract or agreement, including
but not limited to the representation that oral representations made during in person
interviews reflect actual contract provisions;
e. the success rate of the program;
f. the nature and purpose of the Global Client Solutions account , including but not
limited to Defendants' use of said account to secure additional fees and costs; and
g. the actual actions and time frames within which those actions would be performed
by Defendants (the settlement process).
h. the reasons why consumers' Global Solutions accounts have been depleted.
67. Defendants have engaged in deceptive and unconscionable conduct in presenting
English-only contracts and disclosures to consumers, knowing or having reason to know that the
21
consumers did not possess sufficient understanding of the English language to allow full
comprehension of the documents' terms, conditions, disclaimers and disclosures in violation of
F.S. 501, Part II.
COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 501, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES,
THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF EXCESSIVE FEES PROHIBITED BY § 817.802, FLORIDA STATUTES
68. Paragraphs 1 through 64 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference, as if
fully set forth below.
69. Defendants provided "debt settlement" services for a fee to effect the adjustment,
compromise or discharge of unsecured debts including, credit card accounts, of consumer debtors
residing in Florida, services included within "debt management services," as that term is defined
under Florida law.
70. The Fraudulent Practices Act, Part IV, Credit Counseling Services, Section
817.801, et seq., Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions, in pertinent part, which apply
to debt settlement services:
(1) "Credit counseling agency" means any organization providing debt management services or credit counseling services.
(4) "Debt management services" means services provided to a debtor by a credit counseling organization for a fee to:
(a) Effect the adjustment, compromise, or discharge of any unsecured account, note, or other indebtedness of the ·debtor, or
(b) Receive from the debtor and disburse to a creditor any money or other thing of value.
(5) "Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or other legal entity.
22
71. Section 817.802(1), Florida Statutes, provides:
It is unlawful for any person, while engaging in debt management services or credit counseling services, to charge or accept from a debtor residing in this state, directly or indirectly, a fee or contribution greater than $50 for the initial setup or initial consultation. Subsequently, the person may not charge or accept a fee or contribution from a debtor residing in this state greater than $120 per year for additional consultations or, alternatively, if debt management services as defined in s. 817.801(4)(b) are provided, the person may charge the greater of 7.5 percent of the amount paid monthly by the debtor to the person or $35 per month.
72. Defendants required down-payments well in excess of $50, most commonly
charging in excess of $200-$400. In addition to the down-payments, they consistently withdrew
additional funds for fees and expenses from the Global Client Solutions accounts. These fees and
expenses could and would total in the thousands of dollars.
73. Section 817.806(1), Florida Statutes, explicitly provides that a person who violates
Section 817.802, Florida Statutes, commits an unfair or deceptive trade practice as defined in Part
II of Chapter 501, Florida Statutes.
74. Defendants, by charging fees clearly in excess of the statutory limitations, are
engaging in and have engaged in deceptive and unfair acts and practices in trade or commerce,
also in violation of Section 501.204(1 ), Florida Statutes, and are therefore subject to civil penalties
and equitable remedies as imposed therein.
75. Pursuant to Section 501.203(3)(c), Florida Statutes, a violation of Chapter 501, Part
II, may be based upon "[a]ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance which proscribes unfair
methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices."
23
76. Unless Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and
practices alleged herein, the continued activities of Defendants will result in irreparable injury to
the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT III VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 501, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES. THROUGH
VIOLATIONS OF§ 817.805, FLORIDA STATUTES
77. Paragraphs 1 through 64 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by
reference, as if fully set forth below.
78. Defendants provided "debt settlement" services for a fee to effect the adjustment,
compromise or discharge of unsecured debts including, credit card accounts, of consumer debtors
residing in Florida, services included within "debt management services," as that term is defined
under Florida law.
79. Section 817.805(1), Florida Statutes, explicitly provides that a person who engages
in debt management or credit counseling services must disburse all funds received from a debtor
to a creditor within 30 days after receipt of the funds. This Section also provides that persons
engaged in such services must maintain a separate trust account for the receipt of any funds from
debtors and for the disbursement of such funds to creditors.
80. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintained a regular practice of holding
debtor funds for periods in excess of 30 days after receipt of such funds, without disbursing the
funds to a creditor. This is a violation of Section 817 .805(1 ).
81. Defendants claim that the debtors retain control over the Global accounts and that
Defendants do not hold the funds, instead categorizing the Global account as either a "personal
savings account," controlled by the debtor or a "special purpose trust account," controlled by the
debtor.
24
82. Under either categorization, the debtor retains control of the account and because
there is no separation of the ownership interests in the account, it is not a trust account.
83. Therefore, in the alternative, Defendants have failed to maintain a trust account for
the receipt of such fund-s, which is also a violation of Section 817 .805(1 ).
84. Section 817.806(1), Florida Statutes, explicitly provides that a person who violates
Section 817.802, Florida Statutes, commits an unfair or deceptive trade practice as defined in Part
II of Chapter 501, Florida Statutes.
85. Pursuant to Section 501.203(3)(c), Florida Statutes, a violation of Chapter 501, Part
II, may be based upon "[a]ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance which proscribes unfair
methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices."
86. Unless Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and
practices alleged herein, the continued activities of Defendants will result in irreparable injury to
the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT IV VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 501, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES. THROUGH
VIOLATIONS OF CREDIT REPAIR ORGANIZATIONS ACT
87. Paragraphs 1 through 64 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by
reference, as if fully set forth below.
88. As set forth above, Defendants have offered services to repair credit in the course
of offering debt settlement services as a form of credit repair, including offering to settle
consumers' outstanding debt balances and consequently improve their credit rating, credit report,
or credit score. Defendants further provided advice to consumers about their credit rating and
improving their credit score or purport to assist consumers in improving their credit rating, report
or score. Before providing any of the promised services, Defendants' representatives requested
25
and obtained payment for services. Defendants have violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act,
15 U.S.C. §1679, et seq.
89. Section 1679a(3)(A) of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, provides, in pertinent
part, that the term "credit repair organization":
(a) means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails to sell, provide, or perform (or represent that such person can or will sell, provide, or perform) any service, in return for the payment of money or other valuable consideration, for the express or implied purpose of-
(i) improving any consumer's credit record, credit history, or credit rating; or
(ii) providing advice or assistance to any consumer with regard to any activity or service described in clause (i).
90. Based on a review of the representations which have been disseminated on
Defendants' website, the representations that New Opportunity makes or made through its debt
consultants, and/or representations through documents provided to consumers or in
communications with them, Defendants act as and have acted as a "credit repair organization" as
that term is defined in Section 1679a(3) of the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act.
91. The purposes of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, according to Congress, are:
a) to ensure that prospective buyers of the services of credit repair organizations are provided with the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the purchase of such services; and
b) to protect the public from unfair or deceptive advertising and business practices by credit repair organizations. 15 u.s.c. §1679(b).
92. Section 1679b(a)(3) of the Credit Repair Organizations Act prohibits all persons
from making or using any untrue or misleading representation of the services of a credit repair
organization.
26
93. Section 1679b(a)(4) of the Credit Repair Organizations Act prohibits all pers?ns
from engaging, directly or indirectly, in any act, practice, or course of business that constitutes (or
results in the commission of, or an attempt to commit) a fraud or deception on any person in
connection with the offer or sale of the services of the credit repair organization.
94. In numerous instances, in connection with the performance of services for
consumers by a credit repair organization, as that term is defined in § 1679a(3) of the Credit Repair
Organizations Act, Defendants have made and continue to make untrue or misleading statements
to induce consumers to purchase their services, including, but not limited to, the representation
that New Opportunity can improve credit reports or profiles by the consumers entering the
Defendants' program.
95. In truth and fact, New Opportunity cannot improve substantially most consumers'
credit reports or profiles by the consumers' participation in Defendants' program and in many
instances, consumers' credit reports have been negatively impacted upon enrollment into the New
Opportunity program.
96. Section 1679c of the Credit Repair Organizations Act further requires credit repair
organizations to provide consumers with a written statement containing prescribed language
concerning consumer credit file rights under state and federal law before any contract or
agreement between the consumer and the credit repair organization is executed. Specifically
included within the required disclosure is the following:
"You have a right to dispute inaccurate information in your credit report by contacting the credit bureau directly. However, neither you nor any "credit repair" company or credit repair organization has the right to have accurate, current, and verifiable information removed from your credit report. The credit bureau must remove accurate, negative information from your report only if it is over 7 years old. Bankruptcy information can be reported for 10 years."
27
97. In numerous instances, in connection with the performance of services for
consumers by a credit repair organization, as that term is defined in § 1679a(3) of the Credit Repair
Organizations Act, Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide a written statement to
each consumer before any contract or agreement between the consumer and Defendant was or is
executed, as required by § 1679c of the Credit Repair Organizations Act in the form and manner
required by that Act. Defendants have thereby violated section § 1679c of the Credit Repair
Organizations Act.
98. Section 1679b(b) of the Credit Repair Organizations Act prohibits credit repair
organizations from charging or receiving any money or other valuable consideration for services
which the credit repair organization has agreed to perform before such service is fully performed.
99. In numerous instances, in connection with the performance of services for
consumers by a credit repair organization, as that term is defined in Section 1679a(3) of the Credit
Repair Organizations Act, Defendants have charged or received money and continue to charge or
receive money or other valuable consideration for the performance of services that the credit repair
organization has agreed to perform before such service was fully performed. Defendants have
thereby violated § 1679b(b) of the Credit Repair Organizations Act.
100. Pursuant to § 1679h(b) of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, violations of the Act
constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
101. Pursuant to §501.203(3)(c), Florida Statutes, a violation of chapter 501, Part II,
Florida Statutes, may be based upon "[a]ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance which
proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or
practices."
102. Defendants willfully engaged in the acts and practices alleged herein.
28
1 03. As set forth herein, Defendants violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act, and
therefore engaged in deceptive and unfair acts and practices in trade or commerce, in violation of
§ 501.204, Florida Statutes.
104. Unless Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and
practices alleged herein, the continued activities of Defendants will result in irreparable injury to
the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs, Office of the
Attorney General, respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Grant a temporary and permanent injunction against Defendants, and their officers,
agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with
them who receive actual notice of this injunction, prohibiting such persons from violating the
provisions of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes, Sections 817 .802(1 ), Florida Statutes,
817.06(1), Florida Statutes, and 817.41(1), Florida Statutes, and 817.034, Florida Statutes, as
specifically alleged above and any similar acts and practices, and specifically enjoining Defendant,
as follows:
A. Prohibiting Defendants from initiating or directing electronic funds debits as payment of fees exceeding more than $120.00 per year or otherwise obtaining funds for the benefit of Defendants from the bank accounts of Florida clients who are currently enrolled in a debt settlement program with Defendants, prior to providing documentation of a completed settlement to its client, until further Order of this Court;
B. Prohibiting Defendants from enrolling new clients until further order of this Court;
C. Prohibiting Defendants from advertising their services on radio stations and from conducting educational seminars or other marketing efforts.
D. Requiring Defendants to provide a detailed accounting, audited by an independent third-party accounting firm at Defendants' expense, of each and every account of a Florida consumer enrolled with Defendants from the
29
period January 30, 2009 (or as otherwise ordered by the Court) through and including the date of Defendants' complete response, with such accounting to include enrollment, completion or cancellation dates and the following, together with any further documentation requested by the auditor:
(i) the amount of fees required to be paid to Defendants; (ii) the amount of fees which Defendant has debited from
consumers' bank accounts or otherwise collected from consumers, including the total of fees received by Defendants;
(iii) the total amount of debts enrolled by consumers;
(iv) documentation of each settlement consummated and effected by Defendants for the benefit of the enrolled account, including the creditor, amount and date paid;
(v) documentation of each settlement offer communicated to the consumer, including the date, creditor and amount of the offer; and
(vi) documentation of the amount of any refund paid to a consumer, indicating the purposes of the refund as general or service guarantees;
Said accounting is to be provided to Plaintiff no later than 90 days from the entry of an order granting the present request for injunction.
E. Requiring Defendants to designate a liaison, a web page with a web contact and complaint form, an e-mail address, and a toll free number staffed with sufficient personnel to assist with facilitating relief for Florida consumers currently enrolled with Defendants;
F. Requiring Defendants to utilize an amount equal to the aggregate amount of any fees paid to it for debt settlement for each Florida consumer who is currently enrolled, to promptly facilitate and use its best efforts to consummate as many negotiated settlements for the respective Florida consumers as possible within thirty (30) days of the date of this Court's Order;
G. Freezing any and all business of Defendants' business accounts and prohibiting withdrawals from same, with the exception of allowing withdrawals solely for the purpose of meeting current reasonable business expenses.
H. Enjoining any Defendant from removing any money or assets from consumers' Global Client Solutions settlement accounts for any purpose other than to apply said funds to consumer creditor settlements.
I. Imposing reasonable restrictions upon the future activities of said Defendants, including posting of a bond, designating a liaison to assist with
30
facilitating relief for Florida consumers, and submitting of monthly reports of activity pertaining to Florida consumers, to the Attorney General and to an auditor.
J. Requiring that any and all business agreements or material disclosures be offered in Spanish to consumers for which Spanish is their first and primary language.
K. Immediately cease any and all representations to the effect that Defendants are or are affiliated with a "Christian" organization or entity or making any representations relating to their ability to reduce debt until further order of the Court.
L. Order that no bond shall be required with respect to the relief requested herein as the Plaintif~ Office of the Attorney General, Department Of Legal Affairs, State Of Florida, is an agency of the State of Florida and the public interest is served by this action; and
M. Grant all such other and further relief as deemed necessary by this Court.
Date: July b~ 2012
31
Respectfully submitted,
Special Counsel Florida Bar No. 262706 Ronald J. Honick Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No. 091157 110 S.E. 6th St., Tenth Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Robert.Julian@myfloridalegal.com Ph.: 954.540.0601 Fax: 954.527.3708
EXHIBIT 1
32
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR BROW ARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NEWOPP ENTERPRISES, INC., an active Florida Profit corporation; NEW OPPORTUNITY N.P.O INC., an inactive Florida Non Profit corporation; HENRY ROGER PUIG a/kla HENRY ROGER, individually and as owner and director ofNEWOPP ENTERPRISES, INC. and individually and as owner and president of NEW OPPORTUNITY N.P.O INC. and d/b/a GENESIS LOAN SOLUTIONS; RED WASH CORP., an active Florida Profit corporation; RICARDO RESINO, individually and as owner, president and director of RED WASH CORP.; SANDRA COCA, individually and as vice president and director of RED WASH CORP.; MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION FINANCIERA INC, an active Florida Profit corporation; and ELOISA PARDO GALLARD~ alk/a ELOISA PARDO, individually and as owner and president ofMINISTERIO DE EDUCACION FINANCIERA INC.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------~'
AG CASE NO. Lll-3-1088
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST
NOW COMES, PAMELA JO BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
FLORIDA, and states:
1. Pursuant to Section 20.11, Florida Statutes (2008), I am the head of the Department of Legal Aftairs; State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Department).
2. In this matter, the Department seeks damages and relief on behalf of one or more consumers caused by an act or practice perfonned in violation of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes.
3. I have reviewed this matter and I have detennined that an enforcement action serves the public interest.