NY DFS Consent Order to Roach & Murtha

1 NE W YORK ST AT E DE PART ME NT OF FI NANCI AL SE RVI CE S O N E S TA TE S TREET NE W YORK, NE W YORK 1 00 04 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of: ROAC H & MURT H A ATT OR NE YS AT LAW, P.C. d/ b / a / ROAC H & MURT HA, P.C.: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x CO NSENT O RDE R The N ew Y ork S tate D epar tmen t of F in anc ial S erv ic es (th e “D ep ar tm ent” or “ DFS”) and Roac h & Murtha At t orneys at L aw, P.C. d/b/a/ Roac h & Murtha, P.C. (“Roach & Murtha” or th e “ Fi r m ”) a r e willing to re solv e the m atters descri b ed her ei n withou t furt her pro ce edings. WHERE AS, Sect ion 408(a)(1)(B) of t he Fina n c ial Services L a w em powers the Superint ende n t to i nv e stigate a nd l evy a ci vi l pe na lt y for vio la t ions of New Y ork Stat e or fe d eral fai r debt c ollection practices; W HE RE AS, the Department c ommence d a n inve st igation, pursuant t o Se c t ion 404 of t he Financ ial Services L a w, of Roach & Murtha for t h e peri od of Janua ry 1, 2018 t hrough De c em b e r 31, 2022 (“t he Releva n t Period”);

2 W HE RE AS, the Department i nvesti g a te d Ro a ch & Murth a’s complian ce with the requi rements of the Fa i r Debt Collection Practices A ct (“FDCP A”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and relat ed law with r esp ect to the c ollection of consum er de bt; W HE RE AS, t he FDC PA w as enact ed to promo te consist ent s ta te a ction to pr ote ct consume rs agai nst c ollection abuses and prohi b i t de b t collectors from eng a ging in abusive, dec eptive, or unfair practices; W HE RE AS, the Department found t hat, i n violati on of t h e FDCPA, Roa ch & Murtha (1) fai le d t o conduct meaningful a tt orn e y review of cas e f iles prior t o executi ng on d e fault judgm ent s by restr a ini ng Ne w Yor k c onsumer s’ bank a cc oun t s and i s suing property executi ons or inc ome e xec u t ions to ga rn i sh consumer s’ w ages, (2) used false, decepti v e, a nd m islea d ing repre sentations in c onn e ction with t h e collection of c onsum er d e bt in num e rous insta nc e s; and (3) em ploye d unf a ir a nd un c onsciona b l e m eans to co ll ect on consume r deb ts; WHERE AS, the Department found t hat Ro a ch & Murth a e xe cuted an d co lle cted on judgm ent s w it hou t valid assignme n t s in some i nst a nce s and f a iled to provi d e nume rous consume rs w ith requi r e d FDCPA sta tut ory discl osures prior to execu ti ng on ass igne d j udgme n t s; and WHERE AS, thi s Cons ent Order contains the Dep a rtment’s findi ngs and t he reli ef a gre ed to by t he Depa r t me n t and t h e Firm. NOW T HE RE FOR E, in c onnection wit h a n agreeme n t to r es olv e this m att er w itho u t furthe r proceedings, the Dep a rtment fi nds as fol l ows:

3 TH E DEP ART M ENT ’S F IND INGS Respondent 1. Roac h & Murtha i s a dome st i c profe ss ional service corpor at ion and de bt colle cting law firm, inc orpora te d in the Sta te of New Y ork. 2. Roac h & Murtha i s a debt c ollect or, a s define d h erein and pursuant t o 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 3. Roac h & Murtha i s registe r e d and l icens ed by t he New York City Dep art m ent of Consumer a nd Worke r Prot e ction as a deb t co l lec t ion a genc y to tra nsa c t busine ss in New York City. 4. Roac h & Murtha c onduct s bus ine ss in t h e State of New Y ork through i ts principal exe cutive office l o c ated at 500 B i -County Boulevard, Suite 475, Farm ingda l e, New York 11735. 5. Roac h & Murtha i s engage d i n a busine ss the pr i nci p al purpose of whic h is the col lecti on of c onsumer d e bt s and c ol le c ti on on deb ts on beha l f of othe r c reditors. Terms 6. For the purposes of thi s Cons ent Order, the fo l lowing terms shall h a ve t h e me ani ngs s et for t h herein: a. “D ebt” m eans any obligation or allege d ob l igation of a consumer to pa y mone y ari sing ou t of a t r a nsaction in whic h t he m on ey, propert y, insuranc e, or servic es which a r e the subj e ct of the t r ansac ti on ar e prim ari ly for p ersonal, fam il y or househo l d purposes, w het her or not such ob l igation ha s be e n reduc ed to judgm en t, a s provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). b. “D ebt co l lec to r” m eans a ny person who us es any i nstrum entality of interstate com me r c e or t h e mails in a ny busin e ss the principal purpose of whi ch is th e

4 col lecti on of d e bts, or who regula r l y collects or attempt s to c ol le c t, di re ct ly or indi rectly, de b t s ow ed or due or asserte d t o be owed or du e a noth er, a s se t forth i n 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). c. “Consume r” means any pe rson obl i gated or allege d l y obli g at ed t o pay a ny debt, a s provide d in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). d. “Cre dit or ” means any person who offers or exte nds cre di t c reati ng a debt or t o whom a de bt i s ow ed, but t he term doe s not i ncl ud e any pe rson to the e x tent tha t he r e ceives an a ss ignment or t r a nsfer of a d ebt in d efa ul t sole ly for the purpose of fac ilitating c o l lecti on of such d e bt for a no t her, as set fort h in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4). e. “Col lecti on ” or “Collecting” or “ Collect” means mak ing a re pr e sentation, expre ss ly or by i mplication, t h a t a Consum e r owes a Deb t, or oth e rwise t a king any a ction against a Consume r i n furthe r a nce of ob ta ini ng pay me nt for a Debt. f. “ Assi gn e d J udgm en t” m ea ns any def aul t judgm en t t ha t was assigned or sold by the litigating j udg m ent c reditor after ent ry of t he j udg m ent, and for whic h a subs eque nt de bt buye r, d e bt c o l lector, or a ss ignee was not the at torne y of rec ord at t he time t he de f a ult judgme n t was ent ere d. g. “Col lecti on Sui t ” means any civil a ction commenced in a court or tri buna l by Roac h & Murtha a gai nst a Consumer for t h e purpose of collecting on D e bt. L ega l Ba ckground 7. Congress en acted t h e FDCPA to elim in at e abus iv e d ebt co lle ction p r ac tic es by debt collectors, to ensure t h a t de b t collectors w ho refra in fro m using a busive d ebt co ll e ct ion prac tices are no t com p e titively disadva n tag ed, a nd to pro mot e consiste nt St at e ac t ion t o prot ec t

5 consume rs agai nst d e bt c o l lecti on a buses. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). The s tatu te was a r esp on s e to “a bundant e vide n c e of t h e use of a busive, d ecepti v e and unfair debt c ollection practices by many debt collectors” attributed to a n i nade qu a cy of exi sting la ws and proc edur es at th e ti me to pro te c t consume rs. S ee Sec ti on 1692(a) — (b). 8. Under Financ ial Services L a w § 404, the Superi nte nd e nt ha s au thori ty t o inv es tiga te a ctiv iti es that may co ns t itut e viol ation s under § 408. Pursuant to Fina nc ia l Serv ices L aw § 408(a)(1)(B), t he Superi nte nd e nt may le vy a c ivi l p ena l ty for a ny vio la t ion of sta t e or fede ral f a ir de b t collection pract ic es. 9. The FD CPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, prohi bit s the c ollection of any de b t that is not perm itted by law. It al so prohib i ts fal se or mi sle adi ng repr esentati ons or de c eptive means in conne ction with t h e collection of a d e bt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10), including th e fa ls e repre sentation or implication that an i nd i vidual is an attorne y o r t ha t a ny co mm uni ca t ion i s from an a tt orn e y. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3). 1 10. Lawsu i t s aga inst de bt buye rs and d e bt c o l lectors ofte n r e veal t h e probabilit y t hat judgm ent s a re invalid a nd should no t be e nfor c ed, i n c ludi ng c ountless inc id ent s of “sewer servic e” or f a ult y serv i ce wi th respe ct to ol d e r judg me nts th at hav e be e n pur c hased or a ss igne d multip le t imes by deb t buye rs. 1 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (3), for examp l e, pr ohib it s debt col l ect o r s from issui ng co m m uni cations c onta i ning “ [t ]he fals e repr ese n t ation or i m p l i c at i on t hat any i nd i vi dua l i s an attor ney or tha t any c om muni c at ion is fr o m an at t o r ney.” Ne w York court s have int e rpr et ed t his prov is ion t o requi r e any docum ent appearing t o have bee n sent fr o m an att o rney t o a consum er to ha ve undergone “me an i ngf ul a t tor ney i nvo l vement.” M i ller v. W olpoff & Abram son, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 304 (2d Cir. 2003). The att or ney’ s r evie w of t he fil e m ust be suf fic ient to e nab l e t he a tt orn ey t o exer c i se “i ndependent judg m ent ” about t he facts of the cas e and to m ake i ndepend ent de te rm inat io ns w ith res pe c t to w hethe r “t he in for mati on i n t he r eco rd [is] i ncons is te n t or i ncomp le t e, whether [t he c onsum e r i s or i s not] obligat ed t o pay the debt, or whe t her [the consum e r] was t he corr e c t deb t or” p r i or t o com menci ng debt collection ac t iv it y and execu ti ng on judgm ents thr ough i ncome executions or wage ga r nis h m ents. Id. at 305 - 06.

6 11. T he FDC PA requi res tha t a n a tt orn e y seeki ng t o collect on a n a ss igne d judgment enga ge i n a review of the case file suffic ie nt to de t erm in e t ha t t he judgm en t de btor owes th e de bt and re ceived actual notice of t h e assignm ent. 2 12. In addi ti on t o prohibiting false repre sen t ations or implications that a com munication is from a n a tt orn e y absent m ea n ingful attorn ey re vi ew, the FD CPA prohibi ts debt collectors from threate n i ng to take legal a c ti on th at c annot l ega l ly be t ake n, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5), a nd from making false repre sen t ations w it h respe ct to the ch ara c te r, a mount s, or le g a l s tatus es of debts, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). 13. Moreover, de bt c o l lectors ma y no t repre sen t or im p l y th at nonpay me nt of any debt will r e sult i n t he a rr e st or im pr i sonment of any person or the se iz ur e, garni shm e nt, at tachme n t, or sale of a ny propert y or wag es of any person, unl ess s uch a c tion is la wful, and the debt collector or cre d i tor i n t ends to take such act ion. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4). 14. In the first written c o m munications w it h consume rs, deb t collectors are r equi red to dis clos e th at th ey are att emp t in g to co lle ct on d e bt s and t ha t a ny i nformation obtaine d wi l l be used for tha t purpose a nd m ust continue t o d i sclose t o consume rs that subs eque nt com munications are from a debt c ollect or. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11). 15. Debt c ollect ors ar e al so requ i red t o send consumers writ te n not ic e s w ith in fiv e days of the ini tia l com munic ation s in connection wit h the c o llecti on of d ebt s, containing s p ecif ic 2 Pursua nt t o New York law, ass ignm ent of a de bt bec o m es e ffect ive onl y once t he debt o r r ece ives act ua l notice t ha t the ir d ebt has b ee n ass i gned. Tri C i ty Roof e rs, I nc. v. Ne. Indus. Park, 61 N.Y.2d 779, 780 (1984). A s a result, any atte mpt by an assignee t o re duce t he debt to a j udg ment, or col lect on a pr ev iously rende r ed j udgment, is inva li d without ac tual not i ce to t he consu mer. S t robel v. RJM Acquisit i ons LLC, N o. 13- CV -2467(JS) (AKT), 2014 U.S. D is t. LEXI S 14936, at *10 (E.D. N.Y. Feb. 6, 2014). I f a consumer does not rec eive ac tual not i ce tha t the j udg m ent was ass igned, collection on that judg m ent c an v io lat e mul tipl e se ct io ns of t he FDC PA, incl uding § 1692e (4) (i.e., repr ese n t i ng tha t nonpa yme n t of t he debt w ill r esult i n the s eizu r e, garnishm en t, or atta ch men t of proper t y or wages, if not lawful), § 1692 e (5) (i.e., t hreateni ng t o t ake action whic h ca nnot be l awful ly t aken), a n d § 1692f (i.e., eng aging in unf a ir and unconsci on a ble d ebt c o lle ctio n p r a ct i c es). Musah v. Hous l anger & A ss ocs., PLL C, 962 F. S upp. 2d 636, 637 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Moukenge schai e v. Elt m an, El tman & Cooper, P.C., N o. 14- CV - 7539 (M KB), 2016 U.S. D is t. LEXI S 43725, at *34–39 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016).

7 inform ation about t he de b t s, w ith s tat emen t s tha t t he consum er s ma y re qu e st ver ifi c at ion of t he debt s and have t he ri gh t to di sput e the d ebts. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). 16. Debt c ollect ors m a y not e ng a ge i n a busive or oppre ss ive conduct or hara ss me n t of consume rs in connecti on wi t h the c ollection of debt s. 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 17. Additi onally, a de b t collector ma y no t use unfai r or un c onscion a ble m ea ns to colle ct or a tte mpt to coll ect on de b ts. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Fact ual Find i ngs L ac k of Meani ngful Att orn e y Review 18. Roac h & Murtha f a iled to c ondu c t meani ngfu l attorney revie w 3 of consume rs’ cas e fil es prior to e x e c ut ing on de fau lt j udg ment s, in cludi ng by r estra ini ng consum ers’ funds, and i ss uing prope rty e x e cutions or income executi ons to g a rnish consumers ’ wages. 19. Roac h & Murtha t ook leg al enf or cem ent a ction against nume rous consum e rs by free zi ng t hei r b a nk accounts and ga rn ishing w ages, wit hou t eve r r evie wing do cume n ts from or reque sting t h e underl y i ng li tiga tio n c a se f i le s rel a te d to the de b t s, in c ases wh ere Roach & Murtha was not i nvolve d i n procuri ng t he j udg m ent s. Th e documents that were not reviewed by the F irm in th es e c as es i ncl ud e d judgments, affi d avit s of s ervice, summ onses a nd com p l ai n t s, appl icati ons for def a ult j udgme n t, filings s ubsequent to t h e ent ry of the d efa ul t j udgm ent s, and cha in of title documents, es tab lis hin g th e j udgm ent cr edi tors’ ownership of th e de b t s at th e ti me the underl y i ng actions commenced. 3 I f a j udgm ent w as a s signe d t o a t h i rd party after en tr y, an a tt o r ney se ek i ng t o co l l ec t on t he judgm en t “has an inde pendent du t y” t o eng a ge in a r evie w suf f i c i ent t o det e rmine t ha t t he judgm en t ca n l awfull y be enfor c ed pri o r t o com mencing debt co l l e c ti on activi ty a nd exec ut ing on t he j udgm en t. Balt a zar v. Housl ange r & Associ at e s, PLLC et al., 2018 W L 3941943, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2018). S ee also M usah v. Hous langer & Associ a t es, PLL C et al., 962 F. Supp. 2d at 641 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

8 20. In ma ny cas es, Roa c h & Murtha e xplicitly note d in its in te rna l case note s and c as e eve nt summarie s th at i t did not po sse ss servic e of pro ce ss rec ords w ith r esp ect to the consume rs a t i ssue a nd did no t obt a in c opi es of the consum ers’ underl ying lit igat ion cas e fil es to re vi ew, aft er ha v i ng al r e ady co mmen ced l ega l ac tion to c ollect on t he de b t s. Roach & Murth a persiste d in ga rnishing c onsum e rs’ w ages and re stra ini ng consum ers’ bank account funds, w ithou t mak i ng inde pende n t determi n a ti ons w it h r e spect to whethe r or no t th e j udgm ent s could la wfully b e enforc ed by t h e Firm. 21. Numerous consume rs cla imed, for exa mp le, t ha t th e wage g arni s hme n ts and ba nk restra int s w ere the firs t tim e s they ha d l ea rn ed of th e unde rly ing l awsuits or def aul t j udgme n ts ent ere d aga inst t hem — cla im s th a t Roa ch & Murtha was unabl e t o d isprove without po sse ssi ng proof of servic e of process, such as affi davits of s ervi c e. T he De p a rtment’s review of a sample of cas e fil es s how ed that Roa c h & Murtha s en t at least 2 8 6 r estraining notice s, proper ty execut ions, or i ncom e e xec u tion s to th ird p art ies to co lle ct on d e bt s, de spite no t poss essing or revi ewing proof of servic e. 22. Eve n in t hose c ases where Roach & Murtha d i d obtain underl y ing aff ida vi ts of servic e, t h e Firm’s review repeatedl y f a iled to d et e ct issues w it h servi ce th at would m ake it s colle ction att empts unlawful. For exam p l e, i nv ali d affida v its of servi ce oft en re sult fro m prior ins tances o f “s ewer s erv ice, ” a pr act ice wher e by a process server fa il s to lawfull y serv e a summons and c omplaint on a c ons ume r a nd the n s ubseque n t ly f il es a fra udu l en t a ffid avi t of s erv ice. Although Ro ac h & Murth a i s not responsibl e for ve rify ing t he propr iety of service beyond what is stated in t h e affi da v i t s of servi ce, th e Fir m is responsibl e for re v i ewing a nd veri fying t h a t t h e affi d a vit s ar e not faciall y d e ficient wi t h respect to it s coll ect ion at temp ts.

9 23. C ertain of the aff idav i ts at is su e w ere f law ed, as the y did no t show the num ber of at tempts ma d e at p e rsonal service be for e subs ti tute servi ce was us ed or fa i le d to incl ud e consume rs’ apartment nu m bers and co mple te addr es s es. Revie wing the filed a ff i davits of s ervi ce in th es e c as es would have rev ea l ed t ha t service was facia l ly im prop er, would ha ve cre a te d a strong infe rence that service was imprope r, or de monstr at ed tha t the proc ess s erve rs engage d in s ew er s ervi ce and that the co ns um ers at is s u e w er e nev er s erv ed. 24. D es pite fac ial d efec ts bei ng app are n t on the a ffida v i ts in mu ltip le c ases, inc lud ing those re flecti ng i rregularities in service, Roach & Murth a proc e ede d to enforc e t he j udg m ent s by garni shing wages and freezi ng c onsumer s’ assets. In some ca ses, the und e rlying judgm en ts were ultim ate ly vac ated b ecaus e the deb tor s w ere not serv ed, a nd Roa ch & Murtha coul d not dem onstrate that it poss essed proof of service. 25. Roac h & Murtha ’s co m munications to consume rs w ere sign e d by one of its at torne ys, w hich cr ea ted t he fa lse im pression th at th e attorne y h a d meaningfully reviewed the cas e fil e doc um ent s, in vio la t ion of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(3). In those c ases wher e Roa ch & Murtha did not have prof e ss iona l i nvo l vement wit h t he c onsum e rs’ file s, yet ex ecut e d on t he judgm en ts, the delinquenc y le t te r s or exe cut ion let ters se nt und er t he Fir m’s name w er e misl eadin g to consume rs w ith res pec t to a tt orney r evi ew. 26. Consumers were ha rme d b e ca use t he restr ai n i ng notices, propert y e xec u t ions, and inc ome e xec u t ions applied a dd i ti on al, una u thorized bank r e s tra in ing not i ce proc ess cha rges and fee s to the d e bts. Whe n c onsumers eve n tually learned of the de b t s via t h e ir miss ing accou n t funds and wages, the y ofte n n e ede d t o ta k e time off fro m work to c ha ll eng e t he judgm en ts in court, and some c onsumers bec ame subj e ct t o negativ e c red it repor ti ng.

10 27. Moreover, Roa ch & Murth a harmed consume rs by t a king legal ac ti on to r estra in funds and garni sh w ages, without ev er verify ing whet her the d e bts a t i ssue w ere leg ally enforc ea b l e ba sed on c omplete cha ins of ti t le of th e de bts. Debts ar e rout in el y bought and sold multip le t imes by var ious debt co lle ction ag enc ies and de b t buyers. How eve r, th ese ass ig nmen ts must be accompa n i ed by prope r do c ume n tation including, but no t limited to, bills of sal e a nd assignme nt doc u m ent s ev i dencing the fu l l c h ains of ti tle of the d e bt s, tha t would e nt it l e the n ew cre dit ors to enforc e t he de b t s w ith jud i cia l me ans. 28. In nume rous cas es, Roac h & Murtha faile d to obtain copies of the a ss ignm ent s and compl ete chain s of t i tle prior t o g arnishing c onsum er s’ wages or restraining ba nk a cc oun t s. The purpose of the pro c edural notice of a ss ignment r equi re me nt is to provi de the id enti ties o f t he a ssi gn e d c reditors s ee king t o col l ec t a nd al ert c onsumers with re spe c t to t he j udg m ent s. W i thout proper not ice of assignme n t, consume rs w ould recei v e co ll e ct ion r eque sts, phone c al ls, wage garni shment s, and b a nk account re str a int s from c ompa n ie s th ey ha d ne v e r hea rd of. 29. D es pite th is risk of har m, Roa ch & Murtha sent at l ea st 137 restr ai ning no ti c es, propert y executi ons, and i ncome executi ons to t hird pa r ti es to i mprop erl y co ll e ct on d e bt s a nd fr eeze con s u mer s’ a sse t s, without e ver obtaini ng t he assignme nts to d eter mine w he ther th ere were va li d cha in s o f ti t le or validating that the c onsumers re ce iv ed a c tua l no ti c e. Nume rous consume rs informe d Ro a ch & Murth a that the wag e garni shm ents and r estra in ts were the f i rst ti me s th e y had learne d of t he de b t s. 30. Roac h & Murtha ’s co m munications to consume rs w ere sign e d by one of t he Firm’s at torne ys, w hich cr ea ted t he fa lse im pression th at th e attorne y h a d meaningfully reviewed the underl y i ng documents prior t o e xec u t ing on t h e judgments, in vi o lation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(3).

11 31. Moreover, in at least o n e ins tan ce, Roa c h & Murtha f a i le d t o conduc t m ea n i ngful at torne y r e vie w and s e nt a re str a ini ng no t ice to a consume r’s fin a ncial i nst i tution and re str a ine d bank a cc oun t funds afte r t he unde r lying j udg m ent at i ss ue w as a lre ady v ac ated, i n v i olation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(3). T he va cated status of the j udg m ent c ould ha v e been ea si l y discove r e d with a cursory searc h of onli n e court r e cords. False, Dec eptive, or Misleading Re pr e sentations to Col l ect on Debts or Obta in Informa ti on fro m Consumers 32. Roac h & Murtha som e times enga g e d in false, decepti v e, or m isle ad ing repre sentations or means in connecti on wi t h the c ollec ti on of deb ts, in vi ol at ion of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). Spec ifically, the F i rm t hre at en ed t o t ake l egal action t h a t c ou l d not legally be taken. 33. Roac h & Murtha sen t a dunni ng l etter a nd r e strai n ed a consume r ’s funds to enforc e a j udgme n t t h at ha d prev iously be en v acate d. In a nothe r c ase, t he Fi r m i ssue d a restra ini ng no t ice to a c onsumer’s fin an cia l in s ti tu tion, e ven t hough col le c ti on was barred by the stat ute of l im ita tion s, in vi o l ation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). T he c onsum e rs at i ssu e were h a rm ed becau s e th eir funds were re str a ine d, and th e Fir m did no t ha ve the l ega l r ight to col l ec t on the debt s. 34. Additi onally, Roac h & Murtha, on be h a lf of a c reditor, sent a sum mons and com plaint t o a debt or i n a case in whic h t he c r edi to r had pre v i ously waive d t he ri gh t to sue through a n arbitration clause. The Fir m mi srepr e sente d the v al id it y of th e c l ai m and t he cont en ts of the cont r a ct t o the c onsumer since the ma t ter wa s requ i red t o b e settled solely through arbi tration, i n v i olation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). Moreover, t he F i r m m o ve d to en ter a d efau lt judgm ent b a sed on the f a lse re pr e sent a tion t ha t a consume r’s t i me t o answer had e laps ed, result ing i n a defa u l t j udg m ent whi c h was subs eque ntl y va ca t ed on t his basis.

12 35. In othe r ins tan ces, the Fir m i ncorr ec t ly list ed the or igi na l c r e dit or’s na m e on judgm ent d e ma nd let ters sent to consume rs, w hic h cr eat ed confusion for c onsumer s with re spe c t to t he ori g i n of the d e bts a t i ssue, i ncl ud i ng for those c onsum e rs th at lack ed knowledg e of t he curre nt c r e dit ors. S uch f a ls e repres en ta tion s in a tte mpts to co lle ct on deb ts are vio la t ions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). Misrepresent ation s Conce rning the Char ac t er, Amount, or L ega l S tatus es of Debts or Nonpayme nt of Debt s 36. Roac h & Murtha ’s co l lecti on a ttempt s m i srepresented the enforc e ability of d ebt s in c ases where it did not po sse ss val id assignme nts of judg em en t t o it s cli ents, in vi o l ation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). Wi thout valid assignme n t s, the Fi rm’s c lien t s had no le g al ri gh t or standi ng to co lle ct on t he j udgm ent s. 37. How eve r, in num erous ins tan ces, Roach & Murtha ’s in i tia l judgment demand lett ers to c onsumers suggested tha t the deb ts had be en assigned t o th ei r c lients as curre n t cre dit ors, cr e ating the f als e i mpres s io n th a t th e r ec ipien ts had le g a l obligations to pay th e Fir m’s clien ts. The Firm ’s judg m ent d em and l etters containe d f a lse representati ons w it h r e spect t o the cha racter a nd lega l statu s es of th e de bts, in v iolati on of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). Moreover, Roac h & Murtha ’s co l lecti on effort s without v al id a ss ignm ent s s uggeste d t o consume rs th at nonpaym ent of t he de b t s w ould re sult i n se i zure or g arnishme n t of the consumers’ proper ty or w ages, i n viol a ti on of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4). 38. Additi onally, in mu ltip le ins t ances, Roa c h & Murtha m isrepre sen t ed t h e am oun t of the debt s to consume rs by restraining m or e funds than t he a m o u nt s aut hori ze d by the judgm ent s t he Fi r m co lle ct ed on, in violati on of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).

13 Fail ure t o Provid e Notice of the Deb t s to Consumers 39. Prior to e xec u t ing on j udg m ent s, deb t collecting fi r ms are re qu ired to i ssu e dunning l etters to c onsum e rs w ith requi r e d FD CPA stat utory di sclosures. The d isclosures are meant to i nform consume r s of their right s to d i spute t h e debt s, provid e the amount s of t he d e bt s, and di sclose c urr e nt c r e dit or and de bt c ollec tor det ail, al ong with o the r infor ma t ion vi t al to prote cting the r i ghts of the d e btors. A debt c o l lector i s requ ired to e i the r va lida te actual receipt of the dunning letter or esta b l ish a re gu l ar mailing practi ce. 4 40. Roac h & Murtha d i d not m eet the not i ce r e quirement s of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) and 1692g(a) using either method. Many c onsum e rs, for exam p l e, represented that the y d i d not receiv e no ti ce of th e debt s, unt il af ter t he i r b a nk accounts were frozen or wage s garnished. In addi ti on, whi l e Roach & Murtha ha s re presented to DFS t hat i t sends dunning l e tt ers in al l ca ses, the Department ’s rev i ew of the Fir m ’s records rev ea l ed inconsist enc i es in re cordk e epi ng, wi t h many cas e f iles l ackin g a no ta tion th at t he le tte r s to consumers we re e ver ma i le d. T her efore, Roac h & Murtha i s unable t o esta b l ish actual or constructive notic e, in vio la t ion of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) a nd 1692g(A). 41. In othe r insta n c es, the F ir m froz e consume r s’ a sse t s and i ssue d i nc o m e a nd propert y executi ons prior to ma iling init ial FDC PA stat utory di sc l osures to consume rs. Consumers had no opport unit y t o contest the d e bts before f ac ing c oer ci ve c ollections, in viol ation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11). 4 Bal taz a r v. Houslanger & Assocs., PLL C, 2018 U.S. D i st. LE XI S 139375, at *23.

14 Consumer Ha r a ssm e nt 42. Roac h & Murtha a ll owed a n em p l oyee wi th a history of h arassmen t t oward consume rs to continue working at the F ir m for m onths with r epe a te d not ic e o f the e mpl oy ee’s mi sconduct and a ft er the em ploy ee ha d h aras sed consum ers in c onne ct ion wi th t he col l ec t ion of debt on several occasions. The employee was routin el y rude to c onsumers on c al ls, m aki ng unprompt ed, di spar a ging c o m me n t s. Roach & Murth a provide d the employee with two fina l warnings, ea ch listing termi n a ti on a s the re sul t of the n ext i nfr ac ti on ye t di d not t erminate t he em ployee until mont hs af t er furt h e r insta n c es of consumer hara ss me n t occ urr e d. 43. Additi onally, Roac h & Murtha recei v e d a cease & de sist l et t er from a d ebt or af te r the F irm’s rep res en tat ives repe ated ly c a ll ed and inund at ed the consum er wit h co mm uni ca t ions to the point of h a rassment, w i th res pec t to a term inat ed ag r eem ent. Th e unde rly ing j udgm ent was ult imately vacate d. Ro a ch & Murth a violate d 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, as it s e m ployees enga g e d in hara ss ing c ollection tactics w it h respect to t h e colle ct ion of d ebt. Unfair or Unconsci onable Practice s 44. On numerous occ asions, Roac h & Murtha faile d t o provide c onsume rs w ith discl osures w ith res pec t to th ei r righ ts to di spute or se ek va l ida t ion of de bts prior t o garn ishing wages or free zi ng b a nk accounts. The F ir m’s re stra int of consum ers’ funds w it hout provi ding requi red FDC PA stat utory di sclosures or infor mi ng consum ers of the ir r ight s to disput e consti tutes an unfai r a nd unconsci on a ble d e bt c o llecti on p ractice, in vi o l ation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. 45. The Firm ga rn i shed consume rs’ w age s and r e strai n ed bank ac counts ’ prior t o havi ng full y e xec u t ed a ss ignments of judgment i n nu m erous insta n c e s. I n one c ase, Roach &

15 Murtha re strai n e d approximately $13,000 of funds from a consume r’s bank acc oun t prior t o exe cuting an a ss ignment of j udg m ent or prov i ding re qu i red di sc losures to the consumer, m aki ng the F irm’s cl aim to the d ebt inv alid, in vi ol at io n of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Roach & Murtha infor me d the consume r t hat h e had t o m ake p ayme n t in full befor e he c ou l d have t he remai nd e r of his funds rele ased. 46. In anot her case, Roac h & Murtha di d no t appear to ce a s e c ollection activity after rec ei v i ng a disput e from t he c onsumer. Addi ti ona ll y, a por ti on of th e de b t attem p t ed t o b e col lecte d was for a " fina n c e" f e e not a uthorized by t h e underl y i ng cont r a ct. Even a f te r th e consume r pai d t he ori g i nal c reditor the fu ll de b t mi nus th e fin anc e fee a nd prov i ded proof t h a t the wrong person w as served, Roa ch & Murth a did not t ake any a ct ion to set asid e t he judgm en t, forci ng the c onsumer t o go t o court, whi c h ende d wi th a vacated j udg m ent a nd an a ward of sanct ions against the F ir m for fri volous l it ig at ion. 47. Additi onally, Roac h & Murtha re str a ine d m ore t h an the judgme n t am oun ts and mi srepresented the a mount s due i n some cases, in violati on of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Viola ti ons of L a w and Regulati ons 48. Based on t he fore go i ng, the Dep a rtment fi nds th a t Roach & M urtha v iol at ed the FD CPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et s eq. NOW T HE RE FOR E, to re solve t h i s matter wit hou t furthe r pro c ee d ings, the Dep a rtm ent and t he Fi r m st i pulate a nd a gree t o the fo llowing terms and c ond iti ons:

16 SET TL EM E NT P RO VISIO N S Moneta ry Penalty 49. The Fi rm shall pay a c ivil monetary pe n a lt y pursuan t to Fin an cia l Ser vi ces L aw § 408(a)(1)(B) to t he Dep art m ent in the a mount of forty thousand dol l ars ($40,000). No la te r tha n te n (10) days after the E ffective D at e of thi s Cons ent Order, th e Fi r m shall pay its first penalty ins tall ment p aym en t of fi ve thousand dol l ars ($5,000) to t he Dep art m ent. The F irm s h a ll m ake an addi ti on a l pa y m ent of f i ve t housand do lla rs ($5,000) no l at er t han 90 d ays of the Eff ec t ive Dat e of thi s Cons ent Order and sh al l mak e an add ition al pay me nt of f ive thous a nd dollars ($5,000) to DFS ea ch 90 da ys there af te r unt il th e tot al pe n a lt y am ount i s pai d i n full. 50. Wi thout a ltering a ny of t he deadli n e s s et forth i n Par agraph 49, t he Firm ma y pa y off the remaini ng b a la n c e i n fu l l wit h in 24 mont hs of th e Effect ive Date of thi s Consent Orde r a s a l ump sum pa y m ent. T he pa y m ent s s hall be i n the form of wir e tra nsf e rs in accordance with instruc ti ons provid e d by the Dep a rtment. 51. The Fi rm shall not claim, assert, or a pp l y for a tax deduction or tax cr edi t wi th rega rd to a ny U.S. fede r a l, state, or l o c al tax, direc tl y or ind ire c tl y, for any por ti on of th e c iv il mone ta ry p e nalty pai d pursuan t to t h i s Cons ent Order. 52. The Fi rm shall neither see k nor a ccept, di r e c tl y or ind ire c tl y, re im bursem ent or inde mni f i cation wit h r e spect t o payment of t h e penalty am ount, i n clud ing but not li m it ed to, paym ent m ade pursuan t to a ny i nsurance po lic y. Notwi thstandi ng the pr evi ous s ent en ce, t he Firm m ay see k r e im burse m ent i n part fro m a Firm p artne r or former p art ner empl oy e d by the Firm duri ng the R e le v a nt Peri od.

17 Injunc ti v e Relief 53. Roac h & Murtha sha l l c o m ply wit h t he FDPC A, the Depart m ent ’s debt col l ec t ion regul ation, 23 NY CRR 1, and a ll a pplicable provisions of the Consum e r Credit Fairne ss Act. Rem ediati on 54. Roac h & Murtha sha l l e nsure t hat i t ha s s ufficient do cume n tation and i nformation to c onfirm t hat its cl ient may co lle ct ag ains t a C on s um er befor e it f i le s a Co l lecti on Sui t or othe rwise Collect s ag a inst t h a t Consume r wi t h rega rds to the De bt. 55. Before Collecting on any Debt, Ro a ch & Murth a shall: a. Confirm that the F i rm ha s copi es of and ha s me ani ngful ly re vi ewed t he Consumer’s underl ying case file, including, but n o t li mit ed to, t he writ t en agr eem ent or con tra c t obl ig at ing the deb tor to p a y the Cr e dit or t he amount curre ntl y sought, t he signe d appl i ca t ion t ha t create d the D e bt, a nd under lyi ng cha rge off statement with r es pect to th e D eb t a t is s ue; b. Revi ew the d a te (s) of def a ult t o confi r m the D eb t is n ot t ime -barred du e to a n expi red sta tute of lim ita tion s; a nd c. Ensure t hat t he ori g i nal Cr e dit or or subs eque n t assignee s hav e not b een invol ved i n a ny class ac ti on l awsuits or othe r se t tleme n ts that would pr e ve nt the Collection of the D e bt. If no signed c ontract or a pp l icati on e xists, Roac h & Murtha shall rev ie w copies of docume n t s provide d to t h e allege d d e btor while the Consum e r’s ac c ount was active, d e monstrating t h a t t h e Debt was inc urred by t h e Consumer at i ssue. 56. Before Collecting on any Debt w her e Roa ch & Murtha was not t h e a tt orney of rec ord at t he time t he de f ault judgme n t was obtai n ed, th e Firm sh a ll:

18 a. Confirm that it h a s obtai n e d copies of and reviewed: i. A ce rti fi ed c opy of th e j udgm ent to b e e nforc ed; ii. A vali d affi d a vit of serv i ce show ing t h a t t h e Consumer received notice of the judgment e n t ere d a gai nst t hem; iii. Docume nts in t h e Consumer’s underl y i ng li tiga tio n c ase file, including but not limited to, summ onses and c omplaint s, app l icati ons for def a ult judgm ent, a nd filings s ubsequent to t h e ent ry of t he de f a ult judgme n t; and iv. Val id a ss ignm en ts of judgm en t a nd bi ll s of s al e esta bl ishing comp let e cha in of title from t h e part y t hat ob t ai n e d the judgme n t to a ny subs eque nt Cre dit or r e presented by Roac h & Murtha i n conne ct ion with t he Debt, i ncl ud i ng dates of eac h a ss ignm ent, sa le, a nd transfe r. b. Revi ew all assignme n t s of the Debt t o ensure th ey are n ot dat ed af ter th e assignee has ceased to do busine ss; c. V alidat e tha t the curre nt Cr edi tor is li c ensed t o do business in New Y ork S tate; a nd d. Ot he r wi se v alid ate that the cur r ent Cred it or h as legal standi ng to collect on the Debt. 57. Before ta k i ng any Collection acti on on a n As signed J udgment th at would impai r a Consumer’s propert y, such as i ssui n g a wage exe cu ti on or restr ai ning no tice, Roach & Murtha s hall confir m tha t it h as a copy of a v a li d a ss ignm ent of judgme n t, which t r ansfers the r i ght t o col lect on t h e judgment t o a ny Creditor repre sen t ed by Roach & Murth a in c onn e ction with t h e

19 De bt. Roa ch & Murth a will v alid ate that Consum ers have rece ive d ac t u al notice th at th e judgm ent s wer e v alid ly ass igne d to Ro ac h & Murth a’s cl i ent s. 58. Roac h & Murtha s ha ll m ail judgm en t de m and or dunni ng l et t ers to a ny Consumers it seeks to Collect from, pri or t o enga g i ng in a ny o t her form of Co l lecti on activi ty invol ving t h ose Consum ers. The Fi rm sha ll re ta in copi es of th e dunni ng l et t ers and records of mail ing in i ts f iles re lat ing to e ach Consumer. With r es pect to Ass igne d J udgm ent s, the dunn ing lett ers w ill a cc ura te ly n ame the cur ren t Cr edi tors as assigne es of the judg me nts and lis t orig inal Credi tor names, a s supported by t he unde rly ing v a li d a ssi g nm e nt s of judgm en t. 59. Roac h & Murtha sha l l maintain records w it h respect to whet h e r th e Consume rs rec ei v e d the dunn i ng lette rs or not i ce s of ass ignment prior to e x e cuting on the judgm en ts. For any dunni ng lette rs re t urned a s unde l ive r a ble after maili ng, Ro a ch & Murth a shall c onduct a rea sonable se a rch for a c urren t a ddre s s. Should the se a rch show a more c urrent a ddress, the Fi r m shall resend t h e dunning letter to t h e correct a dd ress prior t o ex ec ut ing on t he judgm en t. Roa ch & Murtha shal l e s ta bl ish a doc um ent ed st anda rd m ai l ing pra c t ic e w ith r esp ect t o the mai ling of dunning l etters to Consume rs prior to t he com m enc em e n t of Co lle ction act ivity. 60. Roac h & Murtha sha l l re v i se the t em p late it uses for dunning letters w ith r esp ect to A ss igne d J udgme n t s by: a. Cle arl y ide nt ifyi ng t h e Fi r m ’s cl ie nt as the “Curr ent Cred it or”; a nd b. Incl uding a st a tement t hat t he ri gh t to e nfor ce th e j udgm ent h a s been a ss igne d to t he Fi r m ’s c lien t. 61. Roac h & Murtha sha l l submit revi sed c opie s of t he j udgm ent de ma nd le t te r templ ates to the D epar tmen t no la ter th an 30 days foll owing e xe cut ion of thi s Cons ent Order for revi ew and non-objection. The Fir m will prov i de t h e Departmen t wit h a n arra t ive de s c r i pti on of

20 a ll ch anges mad e to t he template or form col l ection l e tt ers that Ro a ch & Murth a w ill us e in its Coll ection e ffor t s. 62. Roac h & Murtha sha l l provi d e chain of title do c ume n tation verifying th at i ts cl ie n t s are legally aut hor i ze d t o enforce t h e judgments, to all Consume rs th a t re qu e st veri f i cation of the debt s e i the r v e rbally or in writing. 63. Roac h & Murtha sha l l update its w rit te n po l icies and procedures to com ply wi th ea ch a nd e very provi sion of t his Consent Order. T h e upda t ed pol i ci e s a nd proce dur e s s hal l be present ed t o t he Depa r t me n t no later t h a n 30 da ys of th e Effecti v e date of thi s Cons ent Order a nd shall be subject t o t he re v i ew of the D ep artm ent. Th e Firm will submit r e dl ine s to DF S of any cha nges ma d e to policies and proce dur e s purs uant to t h e Consent Order. 64. Roac h & Murtha sha l l implement a training program sufficient t o pr e par e all Fir m staff for c ompliance with t h e te r m s of this Consent Order a nd a l l a ppl ic ab le de b t collection laws and re gulations. The F ir m sh all amend its scri pts, t al king po int s, question and a nsw er doc um ent s, job a ids, or othe r F ir m documents used to t r a in a g e nts and/ or em ploy ee s e ng a ged i n C o lle ction calls with Consum ers and a l l phone m essage or c a ll scrip ts used by the F irm to co mp ly w ith th e te rms of thi s Cons ent Order. T he Firm ’s rev i sed training program will se t forth a d et ai l ed pl an for im plementing the m ea n i ngful attorne y r e vie w r e me d i ation requi r e me n t s s et forth he r e in, inc ludi ng a proce ss for obtaining unde r l ying case file documents for those ma t te rs w here th e Fi rm wa s n ot i nvolve d i n the und e rlyi ng l itigation yielding t h e judgments. The Fir m will imple ment a plan for ce rt ifyi ng tr ai ning at t enda n c e of t h e Firm’s officers, agent s, and empl oy ees. 65. Upon 180 days of the E ffective Da t e of t h e Consent Orde r, Ro a ch & Murth a shall submit to t h e Department for r e vie w w ritten summar ies desc ribi ng ea ch i nstance since the Eff ect ive D at e where a Consum er h a s fil ed an Order to Show Cause aga inst t he Firm, i n cas es

21 where Roa ch & Murth a repre sen t s a Creditor. Thi s s ummary mus t in clud e for each Order t o Show Cause, a t a mi n i mum: a. The name of the f i li ng p a rty; b. The cas e c aption and c our t where t h e Order to Show Cause was fil ed; c. The date on which t h e Order to Show Cause was file d; d. The date (s) of any c ourt pro ce ed ings conducted with r es pect to t he Order to Show Cause; e. A s umm ary of t he alle g a ti ons con t ai n e d in t h e Order t o S how Cause; f. A s umm ary of a ctions take n by Ro a ch & Murth a to re spond to t he Order t o Show Cause; g. If Roac h & Murtha opposes or in t ends to oppose t h e Order to Show Cause, the basis for oppositi on; and h. The curre n t stat us of th e Order to Show Cause. 66. If any of t he a bov e informati on r e gardi ng a pa r t ic u l ar Order t o Show Cause i s not avail able a t t h e time of re por ting, update d infor mation a bou t that Order to Show Cause sh all be subs eque ntl y provide d t o DFS. 67. Roac h & Murtha sha l l pre serv e and maintain for t hr e e y e ars all rec ords and docum ent s per t ai n i ng to t h e topics covere d in thi s Cons ent Order, incl ud ing but not l imite d t o, any re ports or remediation doc u m ent s produc e d to DFS t o dem onstra te th e F irm’ s co mpli ance and a ny othe r c onsumer case file document at ion tha t Ro ac h & Murth a re vi ew ed, in a cc ordan ce with i ts meaningful a tt orn e y review obligations pursuant t o t he te r m s of t he Conse n t Order. T he Fi rm shal l e nsure t hat i t ha s re t ai n e d a l l documentation a nd inform a tion suffi ci en t t o show tha t

22 it s cli ent s may c ollect aga inst Consum e r s prior to filing c o l lecti on sui t s or othe rwise c ollecting on the debt s. Full a nd Complete Coop e ration 68. The Fi rm co mmi ts and agr e es th at it wil l fu lly coop era te w ith the D ep artm ent rega rding all terms of thi s Cons ent Order. Further Act ion by t h e Department 69. No further a ction will b e ta k e n by the Dep a rt m ent a gai ns t the Fi rm or it s succe ss ors for the c onduct se t forth i n t his Consent Order, or i n c onne ct ion wit h the r em ed ia t ion set fort h in t h i s Cons ent Order, provide d t hat t he Fi r m fu lly co mpli es w ith the terms of th e Consent Order. 70. Notwithsta nding a ny o t her provi sion i n thi s Cons ent Order, howev e r, the Depart me n t ma y und e rta k e a ddi tional action a gai ns t the Fi rm for conduct or t ransactions tha t were not discl osed i n written materials submitted t o t he Depa r t m ent in conne c ti on with thi s matt er. Wa ive r of R i ghts 71. The Fi rm submits to the a uthority of the Super i nte nd e nt t o e ffectua t e thi s Cons ent Order. 72. The parties understa nd a nd agree that no provision of t h i s Cons ent Order is subjec t t o r e vie w in a ny court, tri buna l, or agen cy outside o f the Dep a rtment. Parti es Bound by the Consen t Order 73. Thi s Cons ent Order is bindi ng on t he Depa r t me n t and t h e Fi rm, as w el l as an y succe ss ors and assigns. This Consent Order doe s not bind a ny f e deral or othe r st a t e a ge n c y or any l aw enforceme n t aut hor i ty.

23 Brea ch of Consent Order 74. In the eve n t that the Dep a rtment belie v e s the Fir m to be i n material breach of t h e Consent Order, t he Depa r t me n t will prov i de written notice to the F i rm of t h e breach, a nd th e Fi rm m ust, withi n t en (10) da ys of re c ei v i ng such notice, or on a l ater date i f so de t ermined i n t he Depart me n t ’s s ole discretion, a pp e ar be for e th e Depa rt me nt to de monstr at e tha t no br ea c h h a s occ urred or, t o t he e x t ent p e rti n ent, t h at t h e bre ac h is not ma t eri a l or ha s been c ured. 75. The Fi rm unde rst a nds and agrees th at its fai lure to ma ke the r equire d show ing withi n the d e signated time pe r i od set fort h i n Paragra ph 74 sha ll be pr esumpt ive ev ide nc e of t he Fi rm ’s brea ch. Upon a fi nd i ng that a breach of t h i s Cons ent Order has oc curre d, th e De partment has all th e rem edies av ail able to it u n d er th e F in anc ial S er v ices L aw, and any ot h e r applica b le l a ws, a nd ma y use any evi den ce av ai l abl e to t h e Department i n any e nsuing h ea rings, not ice s, or orders. N otices 76. All not ices or comm un i cations rega rd i ng thi s Cons ent Order sha l l be sen t to: For the Depa rtment: L aura Sarli Senior Ass ista nt Deput y Superintendent Consumer Prote ction and Fina n c ial Enforceme n t New Y ork Depart me nt of Fin an cia l Ser vic es O ne S tate S tre et New Y ork, New Y ork 10004 J oseph Mineo As sistant Deputy Superi nte nd e nt Consumer Prote ction and Fina n c ial Enforceme n t New Y ork Depart me nt of Fina n c ial Services One Comm erce Plaza Albany, New York 12210

24 D aniel S chi ano As sistant Deputy Superi nte nd e nt Consumer Prote ction and Fina n c ial Enforceme n t New Y ork Depart me nt of Fina n c ial Services O ne S tate S tre et Ne w York, N ew York 10004 For Roach & Murtha: Robert L. Arleo Attorne y Robert L. Arleo E sq. P.C. 1345 Avenue of the A mer icas, 2 nd Fl. New Y ork, New Y ork 10105 Nichol as Bal bon i The Bal bon i L aw Firm, PL L C 82A H il lside Avenue Wi lliston Park, NY 11596 D enn is B iancan ello La w Office of Dennis P. Bianc anello P.C. 64 Hilt on Avenue Hempste ad, NY 11550 M is cellan eous 77. Thi s Cons ent Order and a ny d i spute t h e reunde r sha ll be gov e rne d by t he laws of the State of New Y ork without rega rd t o any c onf l icts of laws princ ipl es. 78. Thi s Cons ent Order ma y no t be alte r e d, modi f i ed, or c h ange d un l ess in writi ng and signe d by the p a rties heret o. 79. Thi s Cons ent Order constitute s th e entire a gr e ement between the Depa r t me n t and the Fi rm a nd supersed e s any prior c o m munication, understa nd i ng, or agr ee m e nt, whet h e r written or oral, concerning t h e subject matte r of t his Consent Order.

25 80. The Department h a s agree d t o the term s of th i s Cons ent Order ba sed on, a mong othe r thi ngs, repr e sentation made t o t he Depa r tme n t by th e Fi r m. To the ex te nt r epre sent at ions ma de by t h e Fi rm a r e later found t o b e mate ri all y inco mpl e te or in ac curate, t his Consent Order i s voida ble by t he Depa r t me n t in its s ole discretion. 81. Ea ch provi sion of t his Consent Order shall remain e ff e ctive and e nforc ea bl e again s t th e Fi rm, its s ucc essors, and a ss igns, unti l sta y e d, modi f i ed, suspended, or termi n a te d by the Department. 82. In the eve n t that one or m or e provisions containe d i n thi s Cons ent Order sha ll for any re ason be held to be i nvalid, illegal, or unenfor ce ab le in any re spec t, such i nva li di ty, il le g a lity, or unenforceabilit y sha l l not a ffect any o the r provision of thi s Cons ent Order. 83. No promise, a ss uranc e, re pr e sentation, or unde rst a nding ot h er th an t hose cont ai n e d in t h i s Cons ent Order has bee n m ade to induce a ny p a rty t o a gree t o the prov i sions of thi s Cons ent Order. 84. Nothing i n thi s Cons ent Order sha l l be c onstrued t o pr e vent any consume r or any othe r thi rd p a rty from pursuing a ny right or r e me dy a t law. 85. Exc ept wi t h rega rd t o the e nforceme nt of this Consent Order, the Firm’s consen t to t he provi sions of th i s Cons ent Order is not i n t ende d t o bar, e stop, wa i ve, preclude, or othe rwise preve n t the Fir m from taking a ny posi t ions of la w or fa ct or r ai sing any d e fenses in any a ction ta k e n by any fe d e ral or st ate agen cy or de pa r t me n t, or in a ny c ivil action brought by any pa rty a g a inst t h e Firm. 86. Thi s Cons ent Order ma y b e execute d i n one or m or e counterparts and shall bec ome e ffective when such c ounterpart s ha v e bee n sign e d by each of the p a rties heret o a nd the

26 Consent Order i s S o Ordered by t he Superi n t ende n t of Financial Serv i ce s or h e r designee (the “E ffective Da t e”).

27 IN W I T NE SS W HE RE OF, the part i es have c aused t his Consent Order to be sign e d on the dates s et forth below. NEW Y ORK STATE D EPA RTMENT OF F INANC IAL SE RVI CE S By: ______________________________ LAUR A C. SAR LI Senior Ass ista nt Deput y Superintendent for Consumer Prote ction and Fina n c ial Enforc ement J une_, 2025 By: ___________________________ CHR IST OPHE R B. M UL VI HI LL Deputy Superi nte nd e nt for Consume r Protec ti on and Financia l E nforcement J une _, 2025 By: ___________________________ R. GA BRIEL D. O’ MA L LE Y Exe cutive Deput y Super i nte nd e nt for Consumer Prote ction and Fina n c ial Enforc ement J une _, 2025 RO ACH & M URT H A, P. C. By: ___________________________ P ETER T. ROAC H Partne r J une_, 2025 TH E F O REG O ING IS H E REB Y AP P RO VED. IT IS SO O RDERE D. __________________________ ADRI E NNE A. H AR RI S Superint ende n t of Financial Serv i ce s J une ____, 2025 /s/ Peter T. Roach 18 /s/ Laura C. Sarli 23 23 /s/ R. Gabriel D. O'Malley 23 /s/ Adrienne A. Harris 26 /s/ Christopher B. Mulvihill