Attorney No. 99000 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. Calendar 16 STUDENT CONSULTING GROUP, Honorable David B. Atkins INC., f/k/a UNIVERSITY OF ONE, flk/a HELP ASSIST ME DEFAULT 5 JUDGE DAVID ATKINS RESOLUTION SERVICES, a Florida corporation, 2 2015 Dafendant' Clrcult Court-1879 DEFAULT JUDGMENT This matter coming before the court for prove-up pursuant to the Order of Default entered on January 6, 2016 against Defendant STUDENT CONSULTING GROUP, INC., f/k/a UNIVERSITY OF ONE, f/k/a HELP ASSIST ME DEFAULT RESOLUTION SERVICES, a Florida corporation (herein ?Defendant?). Plaintiff being present in open court, due notice having been given to all parties and the Court being fully informed of all matters, THE COURT HEREBY FINDS THAT: A. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, a Florida corporation, because of Defendant?s continuous business transactions with Illinois consumers who contract for Defendant?s services in Illinois; B. On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff ?led its Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief; C. On June 19, 2015, Defendant was served with copies of the summons and complaint in this matter; Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 181(a), the appearance and answer of Defendant was due to be ?led on or before July 20, 2015. On July 22, 2015 correspondence from Cornelius Ronald Scott, an of?cer of Defendant, was ?led with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. An appearance fee of $206.00 was also supplied to the Clerk with this correspondence. However, neither the Plaintiff nor the Court received a copy of this correspondence. On October 5, 2015, the Court ordered Defendant to appear at the next status date on November 19, 2015. At the November 19, 2015 status date, Scott Klein, of?cer of Defendant, appeared in court. At this point, Defendant, a corporation, remained unrepresented by counsel. In Illinois, corporations must be represented by counsel. Downtown Disposal Services, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112040, 11 17. The Court granted Defendant a 30-day continuance, or until December 23, 2015, to obtain counsel and to ?le an appearance and answer. As of December 31, 2015, no attorney had ?led an appearance on behalf of Defendant and no answer had been ?led. To date, no appearance has been entered on behalf of Defendant. To date, no answer, or other responsive pleading has been ?led in response to Plaintiff?s Complaint. According to Section 1301 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, ?[i]udgment by default may be entered for want of an appearance or for failure to (735 ILCS On January 6, 2016, this Court entered an Order holding Defendant in default and setting the matter for prove-up on March 10, 2016; On March 1, 2016, the prove-up hearing was rescheduled to March 29, 2016; K. Plaintiff?s complaint states a cause of action alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/ I, et seq. (hereinafter ?Consumer Fraud Act?) and the Illinois Debt Settlement Act, 225 ILCS 429/1, et seq.; L. The Court has reviewed the prove up materials provided by Plaintiff, which include consumer af?davits, the Defendant?s response to Plaintiff? 5 Civil Investigative Demand, a certi?cation from the Illinois Department of Professional and Financial Regulations, and Defendant?s representations on its website. M. Defendant has engaged in conduct that violates the Consumer Fraud Act and the Illinois Debt Settlement Act; N. Defendant has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: A. A Judgment by Default is entered against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff, and the Complaint is therefore confessed against Defendant; B. Defendant, individually, or in active concert with others, or by any other name or through any other corporation, partnership or business entity in which Defendant has any interest is permanently enjoined from advertising, soliciting, offering for sale, and selling student loan relief services, including but not limited to, ?debt settlement services,? as de?ned by Section 10 of the Debt Settlement Act, 225 ILCS 429/10, in or from the State of Illinois, which includes entering into agreements with Illinois consumers through the website, or any future website, and over the telephone. Whit-'1? C. All contracts entered into for debt settlement services between Defendant and Illinois consumers are hereby rescinded. D. All contracts entered into for debt settlement services between Defendant and Illinois consumers are declared void ab initio. E. Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices that violate Section 2 of the Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, including, but not limited to: a. demanding and collecting an upfront fee for student loan services when such a fee is prohibited by the Debt Settlement Act; misrepresenting that Defendant will obtain ?complete loan forgiveness" without the ability to do so; misrepresenting that Defendant will immediately perform work after a consumer pays upfront fees, when in fact Defendant does not commence any work until it has collected a substantial portion of the upfront fees; failing to provide re?lnds when requested in accordance with its re?Jnd policy; failing to provide refunds after failing to perform the work promised; utilizing a deceptive re?lnd policy that purports to allow full refunds during a de?ned period, but then not providing any services until after the period has ended; luring consumers to use Defendant?s business with the promise of student loan forgiveness, and then, instead, charging high upfront fees to complete federal borrower assistance applications; all of which can be completed for free through website; h. misrepresenting on its website that Defendant was sponsored or promoted by particular news media entities when these entities do not sponsor or promote Defendant; offering ?Debt Settlement? services as de?ned by the Debt Settlement Act, 225 ILCS 429/10, but failing to obtain the authority to do so; misrepresenting that Defendant will enroll consumers in student loan forgiveness programs, without the ability to do so; misrepresenting that consumers qualify for student loan forgiveness programs and then failing to verify consumers? eligibility for such programs; misrepresenting that Defendant has enrolled consumers in student loan forgiveness programs and then failing to do so. F. Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging in acts or practices that violate the Debt Settlement Act, including but not limited to: a. failing to obtain a license as a Debt Settlement Provider as required by 225 ILCS 429/15, and acting as a Debt Settlement Provider in Illinois; charging and requiring consumers to pay over $50 in upfront fees prohibited by 225 ILCS 429/ 125(b); failing to make, on its website and advertisements, the disclosure statement required by 225 ILCS 429/ 105(c); failing to provide an individualized ?nancial analysis to consumers as required by 225 ILCS 429/110, in writing, that states the following: i. an individualized ?nancial analysis, including consumers? income, expenses, and debts; ii. iv. vi. vii. a statement containing a good faith estimate of the length of time it will take to complete Defendant?s student loan debt settlement program; the total amount of debt owed to each creditor included in Defendant?s student loan debt settlement program; the total savings estimated to be necessary to complete the debt settlement program; the targeted savings amount estimated to be necessary to complete the debt settlement program; the consumer can reasonably meet the requirements of the proposed debt settlement program, including the fees and the periodic savings amounts set forth in the savings goals; Defendant?s student loan debt settlement program is suitable for the consumer at the time the contract is to be signed. failing to incorporate in its Service Agreement to Illinois consumers the elements required in a "debt settlement" contract required under 225 ILCS 429/120, as follows: i. ii. a complete list of the consumer?s accounts, debts, and obligations, listing the name of each creditor and principal amount of each debt; a description of the services to be provided by Defendant, including the expected time frame for settlement for each account, debt, or obligation; a statement of the proposed savings goals for the consumer, stating the amount to be saved per month or other period, time period over which iv. vi. vii. savings goal extends, and the total amount of the savings expected to be paid by the consumer pursuant to the terms of Defendant?s contract; the amount of money or the percentage of debt the consumer must accumulate before a settlement offer will be made to each of the consumer's creditors; a written individualized ?nancial analysis; contents of the "Consumer Notice and Rights Form" provided under the Section 115(c) of the Debt Settlement Act, 225 ILCS a written notice to the consumer that the consumer may cancel the contract at any time until after Defendant has fully performed each service Defendant contracted to perform or represented Defendant would perform, and upon that event the consumer shall be entitled to a full refund of all uneamed fees and compensation paid by the consumer to Defendant. f. Failing to recognize a consumer?s right to cancel a debt settlement contract at any time before service has been fully performed in violation of 225 ILCS 429/ 135(a) and failing to return any unearned fee to the consumer within 5 days of a request for cancellation as required by 225 ILCS g. Engaging in practices prohibited under 225 ILCS 429/145, as follows: i. ii. advertising and displaying false, misleading, and deceptive statements with regard to services and fees in violation of Section 145(8); entering into contracts with consumers for debt settlement services without ?rst providing necessary disclosures and ?nancial analysis in violation of Section 145( 12); misrepresenting the debt settlement services offered and making false promises related to debt settlement services in violation of Section 14503); iv. employing deceptive advertising practices on its website by promising to provide services that Defendant does not provide, while simultaneously omitting the true nature of Defendant?s services in violation of Section 145(17). G. A judgment is entered against Defendant, in the sum of eight hundred and tenty dollars and zero cents ($820.00) as restitution for Illinois consumers Jason Kidd and Hamblen. H. A judgment is entered against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000 as a civil penalty. 1. This 15 a ?nal and appealable Judgment, and no Just reason ex13ts toJ??leg mm?ml?g appea" MAR 29 2015 ENTERED: - 879 Judge David B. Atkins Attorney No. 99000 LISA MADIGAN ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL Erin Grotheer Assistant Attomey General Consumer Fraud Bureau 100 W. Randolph Street, 12th ?oor Chicago, IL 6060] (312) 814-7130