Fastbucks and the New Mexico Attorney General are stuck in a legal battle. Image from Flickr.

In New Mexico, the lawsuits are flying between the Attorney General and loan company Fastbucks. Attorney General Gary King filed a lawsuit against Fastbucks last year. Fastbucks has counter sued. At issue? New regulations on payday lending that Fastbucks successfully fought in court in 2006.

The original lawsuit against Fastbucks

The lawsuit that started this tete-a-tete in New Mexico was filed by Gary King against Fastbucks and one other instant payday loan company. The suit, which was originally scheduled to go to court on July 6, was a civil suit. The suit claimed that Fastbucks was responsible for “unconscionable” loans. The judge ordered that Fastbucks and the New Mexico Attorney General were to attend mediation, but the Attorney General did not attend the session.

Fastbucks’ countersuit

In the Roswell district court, Fastbucks filed a countersuit to the Attorney General’s civil suit. Fastbucks alleges that the Attorney General is suing them to “create legislation with litigation.” The suit also alleges that the case has been filed as a reaction to the failure of the legislation to pass in 2006. This lawsuit does not yet have a court date set. It is possible that the New Mexico Attorney General may file for the judging of the suit to be moved. Because the counter suit was filed in a different district than the original suit, there may be issues of jurisdiction.

The essential arguments

The arguments in the New Mexico case come down to the question of “unconscionable trade practices.” The Attorney General of New Mexico claims that these instant payday loans charge too much money for the lending service they provide. Fastbucks and other stores that deal in payday advances say that they are being unfairly targeted for providing lending to high-risk customers. Providing an instant loan to high-risk lending groups is an expensive proposition, so the interest rates are high. Many states and attorney generals have been taking action against these businesses, saying they take unfair advantage.

Nokia claims that Apple has stolen some of its mobile technologies. Image from Flickr.

In the mobile phone market, Nokia and Apple are the two siblings that just can’t seem to get along. Nokia has sued Apple several times. Apple has counter-sued Nokia. At issue? More than 40 billion in online cash loans invested in research and development of cellular technologies. So what is the latest volley in this international debate?

Nokia sues over Apple iPad

The latest Nokia Apple lawsuit is based on the question of 3G technology. Specifically, five separate Nokia patents on the “technologies for enhanced speech and data transmission … and innovations in antenna configurations.”  The design of the Apple iPad uses the technology Nokia believes it designed. Nokia believes that Apple is illegally using Nokia technology without paying licensing or asking permission.

Previous Nokia-Apple lawsuit

This is the second major lawsuit Nokia has filed against Apple. In 2009, Nokia sued Apple for patent violation on Nokia’s cellular telephones. Nokia is hoping to prevent Apple from importing Nokia products to European countries. In response to the 2009 lawsuit, Apple counter-sued Nokia. Apple’s claims against Nokia are also being investigated by the U.S. International Trade Commission. If Nokia wins the lawsuits, Apple may be forced to change the technology it uses in 3G phones and may be barred from importing its older handsets and iPads into Europe. If Apple wins the counter-suits, Nokia may be required to change its technology and will be barred from importing into the United States. Either way, there are billions of dollars of mobile phone market share at stake.

What Apple and Nokia suits mean

The real question that sits in the center of the Nokia and Apple lawsuits is intellectual property. Both Apple and Nokia have spent millions of dollars on research and development. The way United States patent law works is that processes and products can be patented, but programs must be copyrighted. The slightest change in process or product can change a patent. This means that when a company has hired dedicated developers, intellectual property rights must be negotiated. Different countries have differing intellectual property protections, so multi-national companies may be handling dozens of different legal frameworks.

Many people nowadays are turning to credit counselors for help with debt management.

UPDATE: Way back in 2004, Cambridge Credit Counseling got sued for apparent conflicts of interest and illegally high fees. When this article was written originally, it was based on incorrect information from an outside source, which said Cambridge Credit Counseling  was involved in a lawsuit. However, the lawsuit discussed below was settled in 2007. So that other bloggers may learn from my mistake, I have included the inaccurate text below, and there are notes from the Cambridge Credit Counseling CEO below in the comments section that explain the reality of the situation.

Original Cambridge Credit Counseling article:

The state of Illinois is suing Cambridge Credit Counseling, both for apparent conflicts of interest and illegally high fees. Cambridge Credit Counseling is a debt management service. They help customers create budgets and get rid of debt.

In the lawsuit, the Attorney General of Illinois says that Cambridge Credit Counseling has an inappropriate relationship with for-profit companies Brighton Credit and Brighton Debt. Gather.com says: “Cambridge actually paid them to service debts instead of the for-profits paying Cambridge for directing business to them.”

Cambridge Credit a curious case

I’m not sure why Cambridge paying the companies is somehow worse than if the Brighton companies had paid them. I can see why it would be a crime for Brighton to pay Cambridge, but not the other way around. I guess I’m no financial expert. However, you can check out Cambridge Credit Counseling’s (See: http://www.cambridge-credit.org/pdf/conflict%20of%20interest%20policy.pdf) conflict of interest policy on the company’s web site.

Also at issue in the lawsuit is the very valid matter of startup fees. Illinois law states that companies like Cambridge Credit Counseling can only charge $50 for startup fees. However, Cambridge has been charging customers startup fees that are equivalent to their monthly credit card fees. Obviously, if someone is going to a credit counseling service, that is likely going to be a pretty hefty amount.

Future for Cambridge Credit Counseling

Cambridge Credit Counseling is a nationwide company, so it’s possible that more states could jump in on the lawsuit. So far, there hasn’t been word of anyone else joining in, but it probably isn’t far off.

As far as I can see, the company has not yet released an official statement. Cambridge Credit Counseling is the largest credit counselor in the country. The lawsuit certainly won’t put the company out of business, but it could get it to change its policies, which is probably what the Illinois Attorney General is going for.

Rosemary Port

Rosemary Port, the blogger behind “Skanks in NYC,” is suing the biggest company in the world. OK, so I don’t really know if Google is the biggest company in the world, but I am assuming it is.

In any case, Google revealed Rosemary Port’s identity last week after a judge ordered them to. Now Rosemary Port is suing Google for $15 million. Of course, Google isn’t going to need credit repair or anything if Rosemary Port wins her suit — that amount of money is pocket change to them.

Technically Incorrect reports:

Last week, a judge ordered Google to reveal the name of a blogger who may have defamed Vogue model Liskula Cohen. Now Rosemary Port, whose “Skanks in NYC” blog suggested Cohen was a “skank” … among other potentially negative descriptions, is now turning a little of her “frank in NYC” wrath on Google.

You may be moved a little by Port’s logic. Firstly, she told the New York Daily News that it was Cohen who caused all the fuss: “Before her suit, there were probably two hits on my Web site: One from me looking at it, and one from her looking at it (…) That was before it became a spectacle. I feel my right to privacy has been violated.”

Who is Rosemary Port?

Rosemary Port is a 29-year old student at the Fashion Institute of Technology. She used to have a blog hosted on Google’s Blogger, which is where she posted mean stuff about Cohen. When Cohen saw it she flipped and demanded that Google reveal the identity of the person behind the comments. Now Rosemary Port is counter-suing. Technically incorrect reports:

“When I was being defended by attorneys for Google, I thought my right to privacy was being protected,” Rosemary Port told the News.
However, once the judge made her order, things changed. “I would think that a multibillion dollar conglomerate would protect the rights of all its users,” said Port. Her attorney, Salvatore Strazzullo, told the Daily News that Google “breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity.”

The cause of the fight

Technically Incorrect says the reason these two women had a falling out was because Cohen said some not-so-nice things about Rosemary Port to her ex-boyfriend. So, naturally, Rosemary Port took to the Internet, the modern-day playground which allows for passive aggressive revenge and anonymity – or so we thought.

People are learning new lessons every day about exactly how not anonymous they are on the Internet. There are so many different ways of discovering someone’s identity on the Internet that it is best to always assume that you might as well post your full name and a photo of yourself with everything you put on this gigantic, public forum. If someone really wants to find out who you are because of something you posted on the Internet, they will likely be able to find out somehow.

Of course, the question here is whether the judge had the right to order that Google reveal the identity or not. Probably the judge just thought the whole situation was so petty and silly that it would go away, but this case has the potential to actually change laws and set precedent on an issue that will no doubt come up again.

Children’s Place kids clothing retailer has agreed to pay $12 million to settle a class-action lawsuit against the company. Reuters reports that the lawsuit accused “its officers of misrepresenting facts about operations that caused the company’s stock to artificially inflate.”

Though the company has agreed to pay the $12 million, it denies that it has committed any wrongdoing. Reuters reports:

The company said it denied all allegations made in the suit and decided to settle the suit to eliminate further litigation and related expenses.

The children’s clothing retailer said the cost of the settlement would be covered by insurance.

Wow, good thing they had that lawsuit insurance. I wish I had some kind of insurance to pay off all my personal loans.

More drama at Children’s Place

Apparently business at Children’s Place has been shaky for quite some time. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Since taking the reins of Children’s Place in 2007, Mr. Crovitz has been aggressively cutting costs to maintain profitability in a difficult retail environment. Selling, general and administrative expenses fell to 29% of sales in fiscal 2008 from 32% in fiscal 2007. For its most recent quarter, the retailer posted a profit of $23.5 million, up from $19.5 million a year earlier. The company’s shares have risen 17% since Mr. Dabah resigned in September 2007.

The WSJ also reports that Dabah resigned at the request of the previous board because he failed to report an increase in his wife’s stock.

Battle on the board

The Wall Street Journal on June 19 reported the details of the struggle going on between Dabah and Crovitz:

In the six-page letter, accompanied by a gold proxy card, Mr. Dabah criticized the current directors for the company’s recent sales performance, said he was concerned about the company’s failure to plan for the future and pointed to “the promising children’s footwear concept, which has largely been abandoned.” Mr. Dabah … has nominated three executives for positions on the board of the Secaucus, N.J., children’s apparel seller.

In an interview, Mr. Dabah said, “A company cannot be successful — especially a company like ours — just on cost cutting. We need vision, we need growth initiatives, we need to constantly be thinking about what’s next. And we have not seen the company articulate that.”

The company’s annual meeting was scheduled for July 31, but that date is a bit shaky now that the lawsuit settlement has been announced.

Get to know the Children’s Place

The Children’s Place has been a publicly traded company since 2007. However, the retailer has been selling children’s clothing since several years before that. The company also owned some Disney stores from 2004 to 2007. On March 26, 2008, Hoop Holdings/Hoop Retail Stores LLC and related subsidiaries of TCP that operated Children’s Place and Disney Store retail locations filed a voluntarily petition for relief under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

The Children’s Place stores are usually located in regional malls. The stores sell clothing for newborns through preteens, as well as accessories and a limited selection of toys and games. It doesn’t appear the lawsuit settlement will affect daily store operations.