New York City Debt Collection Defense Attorney
Cutting-Edge Legal Representation Manageable Fee Structures

We Defend You Against
Arrow Financial Services, LLC

The Langel firm defends consumers against New York collection lawsuits brought by Arrow Financial Services, LLC. In appropriate cases, we will also take action against Arrow Financial Services, LLC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other applicable laws.

Arrow Financial Services, LLC purchases defaulted consumer debts to collect and sue on them.

Arrow Financial Services, LLC Biographical Information

Arrow Financial Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability company (incorporated in Delaware) and is principally located at 5996 West Touhy Avenue, Niles, IL 60714. It is licensed (#0978241) by the Department of Consumer Affairs to collect debts in the City of New York.

Arrow Financial Services' Settlement Letters Plausibly Created a False Sense of Urgency ("at this time")

In Gully v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, No. 04 C 6849 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 8, 2005), the plaintiffs argued that debt collector Arrow's settlement offer letters, marked with "at this time," created a false sense of urgency, violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The letters implied a one-time settlement offer when Arrow would, in fact, accept such payments anytime. Citing Kahen-Kashani v. National Action Financial Services, Inc., No. 03-CV-828A, 2004 WL 2126707 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2004), Arrow contested that their letters did not mislead as they did not present a one-time, take-it-or-leave-it offer. Contrasting the case with others involving express one-time settlement offers, the court found Arrow's letters potentially misleading due to their implicit one-time offer implication. It also found the lack of additional letters from Arrow irrelevant, emphasizing the misleading nature of the payment deadlines stated. Thus, the court denied Arrow's motion for judgment on the pleadings, allowing the case to proceed as it was possible for plaintiffs to prove facts supporting their claim under the FDCPA.

Collection Defense Intake Form: The Langel Firm

Court Certifies FDCPA Class Action against Arrow Financial Services, LLC for Purchasing Written-Off Debts in Connecticut

The district court in Petrolito v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC (D. Conn. 2004) certified a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Cardholder Petrolito moved for class certification after Arrow Financial Services, LLC purchased his charged-off account from First Premier Bank. The cardholder alleged that Arrow Financial's practice of filing suits seeking a balance due on debts that have been charged off by the original creditor violated the Connecticut Consumer Collection Agency Act. The CCCAA prohibits collection agencies from purchasing or receiving assignments of claims for the purpose of collection or institute lawsuits for those debts. A breach of the CCCAA would violate both the FDCPA and CUTPA.

Upon finding that the certified class would satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court certified a one-year FDCPA class and a one-year CUTPA class in the action against Arrow Financial.

Debtor Sues Arrow Financial Services, LLC for Alleged Violations of the FDCPA for Improperly Submitting Reports to Credit Reporting Agency

Appealing the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the debtor in Purnell v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, (6th Cir. 2008) alleged that Arrow Financial continued to furnish derogatory marks to this credit file without first validating the debt, thus violating the FDCPA.

In 2001, Arrow Financial acquired a debt that the plaintiff accountholder closed in the 1980s. Without verifying this debt, Arrow Financial improperly reported the debt to a credit reporting agency without a "dispute marker." The court found that a debt collector may either choose not to verify a debt and abandon its effort to collect on the debt, or it may verify the debt and resume collection once validation has been provided when a consumer disputes the debt within a 30-day period.

The 6th Circuit agreed that it was error to conclude the debtor's FDCPA claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and reversed the district court's decision, remanding it for further proceedings.

Powerful Defenses against CACH, LLC in 2023.

News: Court of Appeals Finds Arrow Financial Services, LLC Violates FDCPA for Threatening Consumers and Permits Class to Recover Statutory Damages

The Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit held that Arrow Financial Services, LLC violated the FDCPA for false, misleading representations, and for threatening to take action that could not legally be taken or was not intended to be taken in Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2011).

Consumer plaintiff, Gonzales, brought a putative class action against Arrow Financial after the debt purchaser sent letters to nearly 40,000 California residents concerning obsolete debts it purchased in 2002. These debts were all more than seven years old, and could not be reported to a credit reporting agency. However, the letters that were sent to these consumers all contained conditional language which could cause the recipients to believe that their failure to settle the debts would result in a report to the credit agencies.

The 9th Circuit found that Arrow Financial's threatening letters would likely mislead debtors, as the letters impliedly threaten to take action that cannot be legally taken. Arrow Financial argued that it merely used conditional, yet accurate, language, but the court countered Arrow Financial's argument, stating that even "a literally true statement can…be misleading."

Further, the court found that the class could recover damages under both the FDCPA and California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act). The original award of $225,000 to the approximately 40,000 class members was upheld.

Contact us by calling (888) 271-7109 or by completing this form.

Vacating a Default Judgment in New York: 8 Fine Points

More information to help with a wage garnishment:

Here is a list of New York City’s Marshals who enforce wage garnishments:

Intake Form for New Clients. Share Case Details. The Langel Firm