Itria Ventures Hit with Proposed Class Action Over Allegedly Shady Money-Lending Based on Future Receivables [DISMISSED]
Last Updated on April 7, 2022
InvenTel.TV LLC et al. v. Itria Ventures LLC et al.
Filed: February 8, 2022 ◆§ 1:22-cv-01059
[DISMISSED] A New Jersey company alleges in a proposed class action that Itria Ventures has engaged in a number of fraudulent practices with regard to loans and other transactions.
Case Updates
April 4, 2022 – Suit Against Itria Ventures, Biz2Credit Voluntarily Dismissed by Plaintiff
The proposed class action lawsuit detailed on this page was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff on March 2, 2022.
The plaintiff’s one-page notice of voluntary dismissal can be found here. The document does not provide a reason for the dismissal.
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
A New Jersey-based direct-response television marketing company alleges in a proposed class action that Itria Ventures has engaged in a number of fraudulent practices with regard to loans and other transactions.
The 23-page lawsuit alleges Itria and affiliate broker Biz2Credit Inc. have fraudulently misrepresented loans as financing agreements, improperly sought payment outside of purportedly purchased future receivables and unlawfully charged criminally usurious interest rates on top of “multiple acts of racketeering.”
According to the complaint, Itria provides to businesses funding that it advertises and markets as “future receivables purchases” that a customer is responsible for paying back through some of its future revenue. Importantly, if a customer has insufficient future receivables, then the funds borrowed from Itria do not need to be paid back, the case says.
Although Itria’s standard contract “explicitly” states that the company assumes the risk that future receivables may not be available from a customer, it is clear, the lawsuit alleges, that the company “actually assumes no risk,” and deems all loaned funds to be due and payable under all conditions.
The plaintiff, InvenTel.TV, who is involved in the development, production, sale, marketing and distribution of consumer products, alleges Itria, as a pattern and practice, knows at the time it sends contracts to customers that the agreements are “fraudulently and intentionally misleadingly named and described.”
Per the lawsuit, Itria and the plaintiff business entered into an agreement whereby the defendant loaned the company more than $244,000. For this first loan, the plaintiff was required to pay back to Itria $305,000 at a rate of $1,452.38 per day, the suit says.
“That translates into $60,812.50 in interest in only 210 days or an annualized interest rate of approximately 43.29% which is well over any reasonable interest rate and fully criminally usurious,” the complaint alleges.
In September 2019, the plaintiff entered into a second loan with Itria for more than $244,000 and was again required to repay $305,000, this time at an accelerated $1,613.76 per day, the lawsuit claims. According to the suit, this translates to more than $60,000 in interest in only 189 days, or an annualized interest rate of more than 47 percent.
“These ultra-high criminally usurious interest rates shock the conscience and should not be condoned,” the complaint reads, alleging Itria “commonly charges similar usurious interest rates on the loans it makes” to all proposed class members.
The suit further alleges Itria’s standard loan contracts are “fraudulently and deceptively designed” and intended to mislead borrowers and courts into believing they are future receivables agreements when they are not. Itria’s dissemination of the alleged contracts electronically and by mail constitutes mail and wire fraud, the lawsuit alleges.
The suit looks to represent all persons or entities who borrowed money from Itria and Biz2Credit using a nominal “future receivables sale agreement” or similar arrangement within the last four years and whose funding was treated as a loan by the defendants seeking repayment under all circumstances, specifically “even when the percentage of the receivables set forth in the contract is less than the nominal daily amount of repayment.”
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.