Consumer legal funder RD Legal has filed its opening brief in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal. The funder is appealing Judge Loretta Preska’s June 2018 order to void its funding agreements with ex-NFL players and members of the September 11th Victim’s Compensation Fund, on the basis that the funding agreements were in effect assignments, and therefore void under the anti-assignment clause of the NFL settlement agreement, and the federal Anti-Assignment Act.
Does Consumer Legal Funding Put Consumers in Debt?
Consumer legal funder RD Legal has filed its opening brief in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal. The funder is appealing Judge Loretta Preska’s June 2018 order to void its funding agreements with ex-NFL players and members of the September 11th Victim’s Compensation Fund, on the basis that the funding agreements were in effect assignments, and therefore void under the anti-assignment clause of the NFL settlement agreement, and the federal Anti-Assignment Act.
As reported in National Law Review, Judge Preska subsequently found that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) cannot bring its case against RD Legal because its structure of being led by a single director who is only removable for cause by the President of the United States is unconstitutional. Judge Preska dismissed the CFPB from the case, and several weeks later followed that up with a dismissal of the New York Attorney General (NYAG) from the case.
RD Legal is now appealing Judge Preska’s ruling that its transactions violate the anit-assignment clauses.
Recently, the 9th Circuit upheld the CFPB’s constitutionality, and the 5th Circuit is hearing oral arguments in another case involving the organization’s constitutionality. RD Legal is asking the 2nd Circuit to uphold Judge Preska’s decision that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional.
