Contact Us

Contact Us


  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013

  • Areas & Topics

    Frquently Asked Questions

    Our Office Location

    Edelman, Combs, Latturner, & Goodwin, LLC

    20 South Clark Street
    Suite 1500
    Chicago, IL 60603
    Phone: 312-739-4200
    Fax: 312-419-0379

    E-mail Us  |  Chicago Law Office

    Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's facebook page   Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's Twitter Page   Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's Google Plus Page

    Tribal payday loans

    In one of our cases,  Jackson v. Payday Financial, LLC, No. 12-2617, 2014 WL 4116804  (7th Cir., August 22, 2014), the federal court of appeals in Chicago rejected an attempt by payday lenders associated with a  Native American tribe to avoid state restrictions on such loans.  The court held that the district court  erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ lawsuit, alleging that certain loans promulgated by defendants that had yearly interest rates of 139 percent violated various Illinois civil and criminal statutes, where dismissal was based on venue clause contained in loan agreements that called for parties to submit disputes to arbitration conducted by Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe that were to take place on Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation located in South Dakota. The court found that the arbitral mechanism specified in loan agreement was sham/illusory, since Tribe had no  procedures for selection of arbitrators or for conduct of arbitral proceedings. Thus, it would not have been possible for plaintiffs to have ascertained dispute resolution process and rules to which they were agreeing at time of loan agreement. As such, Ct. found that plaintiffs could proceed in federal court where venue clause in loan agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable.


    The following is from a comment about the case on Indigenous Law and Policy Center Blog Michigan State University College of Law:


    As should be expected by this time, payday lending in Indian country is creating bad law for tribal interests. This case involved a privately owned payday lending operation. Tribally-owned operations will be scrambling to distinguish themselves from this case. Particularly troublesome is the holding and (hopefully) dicta from the opinion that suggests tribal courts have no jurisdiction involving off-reservation lending operations, even though the operation is based in Indian country and even though the lending instrument includes a forum selection clause naming a tribal forum.

    My initial recommendations to tribal leaders and counsel — shut down on-reservation-based payday lending operations operated privately immediately. My second recommendation is to ensure that tribal regulations of tribally owned payday lending operations are independent and robust. In other words, tribes must be able to withstand the kind of searching inquiry into their regulatory scheme that the federal court did in this case. Can tribal sovereign lenders say that?