Add Me!Close Menu Navigation

HSBC is cutting back in the U.S. after its 2003 purchase of Household International Inc. required it to set aside more than $65 billion for bad loans

Add Me!Open Categories Menu

About Carmel Holdings and IDT Carmel Portfolio Management

In this article you will learn about FFPM Carmel Holdings, or “How to lose a lawsuit by not showing up in court” combined with “Oh we did not have a license as a debt collector.”

Who are these losers?

FFPM Carmel Holdings I, LLC pays an average of less than ten cents on the dollar for the debts it purchases. According to the report on SEC Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2007 filed by IDT Corporation, a related entity, IDT Carmel Portfolio Management, LLC, owns 99% of FFPM Carmel Holdings I, LLC. FFPM Carmel Holdings I, LLC is a limited liability company organized under Delaware law with principal offices located at 2800 North 44th Street, Suite 310, Phoenix, AZ 85008. It is also known as First Financial Portfolio Management

How bold are these idiots?

On or about April 4, 2008, FFPM Carmel Holdings I, LLC filed suit against plaintiff William K. Berkson in the Circuit Court of Kane County to collect a purported debt incurred for personal, family or household purposes. FFPM Carmel Holdings I, LLC claimed to have purchased the debt.

According to the Web site of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, FFPM Carmel Holdings I, LLC has never held a collection agency license (in Illinois).

Defendant Carmel Holdings therefore did not have any sort of valid claim and knew or should have known that it did not have a valid claim.

Plaintiff Berkson was required to retain counsel to defend the lawsuit, pay counsel, and pay a filing fee to the Circuit Court.

On August 14, 2008, the appointed trial date, judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Berkson and against FFPM Carmel Holdings I, LLC, after FFPM failed to appear.

Foundation in law and violations of fair Debt Collection Protection Act:

The filing and prosecution of collection lawsuits notwithstanding a known defense, in the hope that the consumer will not raise the defense, is both a deceptive collection practice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10), and an unfair collection practice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f.

Since Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1488 (M.D.Ala. 1987), “bringing a lawsuit to which there appears to exist a complete defense” in the hope that the consumer will not realize it exists and will default or pay has been a violation of the FDCPA.

Posted By Timothy Blake

Comments are closed.

UPDATE NOTE: HSBC car loans were sold to Santander USA in 2010 :: Most HSBC credit cards became Capital One credit cards in 2012 :: HSBC horrible predatory home mortgages are in run-off