American Web Loan Lawsuit: The $141M Rent-a-Tribe Settlement

The American Web Loan lawsuit, formally Solomon v. American Web Loan, Inc., was a federal class action in the Eastern District of Virginia that ended in July 2021 with an $86 million cash payment to borrowers and the cancellation of more than $100 million in outstanding loan debt. The suit accused the online lender of running a “rent-a-tribe” scheme that used the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians as a shield to charge annual interest rates as high as 726% in violation of state usury laws.¹

What American Web Loan Was Accused of Doing

American Web Loan, or AWL, was set up as a wholly owned tribal corporation of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe, a federally recognized tribe based in Oklahoma. It made short-term online loans of $300 to $2,500 at annual percentage rates that could top 700%, far above the caps in most states.¹

The plaintiffs’ theory was that the tribal wrapper was largely cosmetic. According to the complaint, non-tribal businessman Mark Curry created AWL in 2010 and ran it through a network of about 30 companies, including MacFarlane Group and SOL Partners, that handled lead generation, loan processing, and collections. The tribe, the plaintiffs said, received roughly one percent of net profits.² Curry testified that his share of AWL profits between February 2010 and September 2016 came to about $110 million, with average annual earnings of roughly $18 million from 2013 on.³

In 2016, Curry structured a $200 million transaction in which the tribe “purchased” his companies through seller take-back financing. The tribe took on the debt while Curry continued to receive payments and, the plaintiffs alleged, actual control of the operation.³

The complaint was filed December 15, 2017, as case number 4:17-cv-00145. An amended complaint in March 2018 added Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group LLC, and Middlemarch Partners as defendants, alongside Curry and AWL. Plaintiffs brought claims under RICO, state usury laws, and other consumer protection statutes.⁴¹

The Ruling That Let the Case Move Forward

The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that AWL’s tribal status gave them sovereign immunity. On March 20, 2019, Senior U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. denied the motions. In an opinion reported at 375 F.Supp.3d 638, he found that plaintiffs had produced enough evidence to show that “Curry shifted all of the risk of his scheme to the Tribe and kept the lion’s share of the revenue for himself,” and that Curry “was acting for himself, not for the Tribe.”⁵ Judge Morgan wrote that Curry had used sovereign immunity as both “a sword and a shield.”³ The ruling cleared the way for the case to move toward trial and, ultimately, settlement.

What the Settlement Gave Borrowers

A preliminary settlement was reached in April 2021, and the court granted final approval on July 9, 2021.¹ Its main terms:

An $86 million cash fund for the class, funded in part by debt payments and consulting fees that would otherwise have gone to Curry.¹³
Cancellation of $100.5 million in outstanding class-period loans owned by AWL as of December 17, 2020, plus unsatisfied debt held by third-party collector Northwood Asset Management Group LLC.¹
Curry’s removal as CEO and from AWL’s board effective June 2020, and his exit from all managerial roles by December 28, 2020.³
Injunctive relief and other non-monetary measures not fully detailed in public filings.¹

Plaintiffs’ counsel, led by Berman Tabacco, Gravel & Shea, and MichieHamlett, sought $32.4 million in attorney fees from the settlement fund.⁶

Who Was Covered and How Payments Worked

The class included everyone in the United States who borrowed from AWL between February 10, 2010, and June 26, 2020.¹ For payment purposes it was split in two.

Borrowers with loans between January 1, 2012, and June 26, 2020, were handled automatically. They received a proportionate share of the cash fund, had their eligible loans cancelled as disputed debt with balances zeroed out, and had a request submitted to credit bureaus to delete the associated reporting. No claim form was required.⁷

Borrowers from the earlier period of February 10, 2010, through December 31, 2011, for whom AWL no longer had contact records, had to file a claim form by November 3, 2020. Depending on whether they submitted supporting documents such as a loan agreement or bank statement, these earlier borrowers received either a flat $20 payment or a proportional share.⁷

By late October 2021, class members reported individual payments of up to $119.46. Some received multiple distributions, and further payments had been expected to run through 2023.⁷

What Happened to Mark Curry

Curry lost his roles at AWL under the settlement but was not criminally charged. The available record shows no federal prosecution against him, in contrast to other rent-a-tribe operators: Scott Tucker was sentenced to 16 years in federal prison for racketeering, and his associate Charles Hallinan was also convicted of federal racketeering charges.⁸ Curry’s exposure stayed on the civil side, through the Solomon settlement, related class actions, and state regulatory actions.³

Related Rent-a-Tribe Litigation

Solomon was not the only case aimed at this lending model. A parallel class action, McDaniel v. Curry et al. (No. 5:20-cv-00257), was filed in West Virginia state court in October 2020 and removed to the Northern District of West Virginia in December 2020. It named Curry, AWL, Red Stone Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, and alleged violations of West Virginia usury and consumer protection laws. The West Virginia court stayed the case in January 2021 while the Solomon settlement moved to final approval.²⁹

Other Fourth Circuit rulings have narrowed the space for this model. In Hengle v. Treppa, decided November 16, 2021, the court held that arbitration clauses requiring exclusive application of tribal law were an impermissible “prospective waiver” of borrowers’ federal rights, that Virginia’s 12% general interest cap applied to off-reservation online lending, and that tribal officers could be sued individually.¹⁰ In July 2025, the Fourth Circuit in Williams v. Martorello affirmed a roughly $44 million judgment against another non-tribal operator, holding that a mistake-of-law defense does not apply to civil RICO claims and that non-tribal operators remain liable even after tribal entities settle out.¹¹

The Otoe-Missouria Tribe’s lending operations also continued under different names. In December 2023, a new class action, Harris et al. v. W6LS, Inc. et al. (No. 1:23-cv-16429), was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against WithU Loans and Caliber Financial Services, both organized under tribal law, alleging a similar model with annual rates approaching 500% in a state that caps unlicensed lenders at 9%.¹²¹³¹⁴

1
Berman Tabacco. American Web Loan Tribal Lending
2
ClassAction.org. Rent-a-Tribe Class Action Alleges American Web Loan Made Millions Collecting Debt From Usurious Loans
3
The Intercept. Payday Lender, Native American Tribe, American Web Loan
4
CourtListener. Solomon v. American Web Loan, Inc.
5
vLex. Solomon v. American Web Loan, 375 F.Supp.3d 638
6
Law360. Solomon et al v. American Web Loan, Inc. et al
7
Top Class Actions. American Web Loan Class Action Settlement
8
U.S. PIRG Education Fund. The End for Rent-a-Tribe Payday Lending Schemes
9
SEC. Medley Capital Corporation Form 10-Q
10
Justia. Hengle v. Treppa, No. 20-1062
11
Courthouse News Service. Fourth Circuit Sides With Virginia Borrowers in Rent-a-Tribe Lending Scheme
12
ClassAction.org. WithU Loans Facing Rent-a-Tribe Class Action in Illinois
13
Justia. Harris et al v. W6LS, Inc. et al
14
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Harris et al. v. W6LS, Inc. et al., No. 24-2056