Federal Trade Commission v. Hardco Holding Group LLC
6:17-cv-01257
M.D. Fla.Dec 5, 2017Background
- FTC sued Hardco Holding Group LLC, S&H Financial Group, Inc., Daryl M. Hall, and Dequan M. Sicard alleging deceptive, abusive, and unfair debt-collection practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the FDCPA; FTC sought permanent injunction and equitable relief.
- Court entered an ex parte TRO freezing assets and appointed a receiver; later entered stipulated preliminary injunctions against the Corporate Settling Defendants and Hall and a preliminary injunction against Sicard.
- Settling Defendants (Hardco, S&H, Hall) stipulated to entry of a final permanent injunction and settlement resolving claims between them and the FTC; they did not admit or deny the complaint’s allegations except as necessary for jurisdiction.
- The Order permanently bars the Settling Defendants from engaging in any debt-collection activities, buying/selling consumer debt, and from making material misrepresentations about financial products, credit repair, or debt-relief services.
- The Court entered a monetary judgment for $702,059 in favor of the FTC against the Settling Defendants, with partial suspension conditioned on truthful financial disclosures; specific asset transfers to the Receiver and to the FTC were ordered and the asset freeze was modified to permit those transfers.
- The Order appoints a permanent receiver to liquidate Receivership Entities, requires ongoing cooperation, recordkeeping, compliance reporting, and subjects the defendants to monitoring and discovery by the FTC; the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to enter relief | FTC: federal court has authority under FTC Act §13(b) and FDCPA enforcement provisions | Settling Defs: (no jurisdictional contest; they admitted facts necessary for jurisdiction only) | Court: has jurisdiction; defendants admitted facts necessary for jurisdiction |
| Liability for deceptive/abusive debt-collection practices | FTC: defendants engaged in deceptive, abusive, and unfair debt-collection and financial-product misrepresentations violating FTC Act and FDCPA | Settling Defs: neither admit nor deny allegations (but stipulated to injunctive relief) | Court: entered permanent injunction resolving claims per parties’ stipulation |
| Monetary relief and suspension condition | FTC: seeks equitable monetary relief and asset turnover; suspension only if financial disclosures truthful | Settling Defs: agreed to judgment and conditional suspension based on their sworn financial statements | Court: entered $702,059 judgment; partially suspended contingent on accuracy of defendants’ financial representations; ordered specified asset transfers |
| Receivership, monitoring, and compliance obligations | FTC: requested continued receivership, cooperation, records, and long-term reporting/monitoring to ensure consumer redress and enforcement | Settling Defs: agreed to receivership continuation, cooperation, records, and monitoring obligations | Court: retained permanent receiver with liquidation powers, imposed cooperation, recordkeeping, compliance reporting, and monitoring provisions; retained jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- None (the presented opinion does not cite any reported cases).