Bright Lending, the high-interest online lender owned by the Fort Belknap Indian Community in Montana, has been the target of a Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit that ended in a February 2024 settlement and remains the defendant in active class actions in New Jersey and Illinois. Every case centers on the same allegation: that Bright Lending uses its tribal affiliation to charge annual interest rates between 500% and 725% in states that cap consumer interest far lower.
The Minnesota Attorney General Lawsuit
On October 30, 2023, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Case No. 23-cv-003321) against Evan Azure, the CEO of Island Mountain Development Group (IMDG), and Geno LeValdo, then the IMDG chairman. IMDG is the Fort Belknap economic development arm that runs Bright Lending along with two sister brands, Green Trust Cash and Target Cash Now.1Minnesota Attorney General. Island Mountain Development Group Lawsuit
Because the Fort Belknap Indian Community holds sovereign immunity, the state could not sue the tribal entity itself and could not pursue monetary penalties. The complaint instead named the individual officers and sought an injunction, alleging violations of five Minnesota statutes and two federal laws, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Prosecutors alleged annual rates between 400% and 800%, far above Minnesota’s 36% cap, and said the lenders falsely told borrowers that state law did not apply because the loans came from a sovereign tribal entity.2Star Tribune. Ellison Sues Affiliates of Montana Tribe, Alleging Predatory Lending Against Minnesota Laws
The state’s investigation identified 634 loans to Minnesota residents that went into default between 2018 and 2022, with balances totaling roughly $990,000. The lenders had already collected at least $540,000 from those defaulted borrowers.3Minnesota Attorney General. Online Lenders Settlement
Settlement Terms
The parties settled before the court ruled on either the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the state’s motion for a preliminary injunction. A federal judge signed the consent decree on February 27, 2024. By then, William Bell had replaced LeValdo as IMDG chairman and was listed as a party to the settlement.4Daily Montanan. Minnesota–Fort Belknap Settlement Agreement
Under the settlement:
- Bright Lending, Green Trust Cash, and Target Cash Now must stop offering or making loans to anyone physically located in Minnesota.
- Their websites must disclose that they cannot lend to Minnesota residents.
- On loans already outstanding, the lenders may collect only the original principal. All accrued interest must be written off, and every past payment already made must be credited toward principal. The state estimated the affected balances exceeded $1 million.3Minnesota Attorney General. Online Lenders Settlement
- Within 45 days, IMDG officials had to give the state and the court a confidential spreadsheet identifying every active loan and borrower.
- If the companies want to resume lending in Minnesota, they must give the Attorney General 120 days’ notice and agree to comply with Minnesota’s interest-rate caps and licensing rules.5Daily Montanan. Fort Belknap Company Officials Agree to Cease Short-Term Lending in Minnesota in Settlement
The defendants did not admit wrongdoing.6Star Tribune. Alleged Predatory Lending, Minnesota Attorney General, Fort Belknap Montana
Class Actions in New Jersey and Illinois
Haremza v. Doe (New Jersey)
On January 5, 2022, two New Jersey consumers filed Haremza et al. v. Doe et al. (Case No. 3:22-cv-00043), alleging Bright Lending used a rent-a-tribe model to evade state usury laws. The complaint brought claims under RICO, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act. The proposed class covers everyone who obtained a Bright Lending loan within the preceding four years while living outside Nevada, Utah, or the District of Columbia.7ClassAction.org. Class Action Alleges Bright Lending, Montana Native American Tribe Behind High-Interest Loansharking Enterprise
Dixon v. Gatzke (Illinois)
Illinois borrower Curtis Dixon filed Dixon v. Gatzke, et al. (Case No. 24 C 11834) in the Northern District of Illinois in 2024. Dixon’s two Bright Lending loans carried interest rates of roughly 599% and 500%. The complaint names Benjamin Gatzke and his companies, the tribal defendants, and Newport Funding, alleging an illegal tribal lending scheme that violates RICO and Illinois consumer protection statutes.8Native American Rights Fund. Dixon v. Gatzke, Case No. 24 C 11834
On July 2, 2025, Judge Matthew Kennelly denied motions to dismiss filed by the Gatzke defendants and the tribal defendants. The court found that they had purposefully directed their conduct at Illinois by making high-interest loans to an Illinois resident and running the website and marketing infrastructure used to make those loans. Newport Funding’s motion to dismiss was granted because merely funding the loans did not establish enough contacts with Illinois for personal jurisdiction. BorrowWorks Decision Science, Inc. was dismissed after Gatzke testified it no longer exists, though its successor BWDS, LLC remains a defendant.8Native American Rights Fund. Dixon v. Gatzke, Case No. 24 C 11834
The Rent-a-Tribe Allegation Behind Every Case
Each lawsuit turns on the same theory: that non-tribal financiers built the lending operation, use the tribe’s sovereign immunity to shield it from state usury caps, and keep most of the money. The central non-tribal figure in the litigation is Benjamin Gatzke, CEO of BorrowWorks Decision Science and its successor BWDS, LLC. Court filings allege that a Gatzke-owned company was the original registrant of the Bright Lending website, that BorrowWorks owned the Bright Lending logo trademark, and that BWDS developed the Bright Lending mobile app. Plaintiffs also allege that Gatzke was the founding chief technology officer of Think Finance, an earlier company the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued in 2017 over a similar arrangement.8Native American Rights Fund. Dixon v. Gatzke, Case No. 24 C 11834
The tribe and Gatzke deny the characterization. They describe BorrowWorks’ role as “limited, non-management services,” including marketing help and a technology platform running analytics based on eligibility rules the tribe sets. In an April 2023 affidavit, IMDG CEO Evan Azure stated that “no non-Tribal entity has any ownership interest” in Bright Lending, its loans, or IMDG.9Daily Montanan. Fort Belknap’s Lending Operations Under Scrutiny in Federal Courts Outside Montana
Related Rulings That Weaken Bright Lending’s Defenses
Two 2025 appellate decisions have made the sovereign-immunity defense harder to sustain. In August 2025, the Third Circuit ruled in Ransom v. GreatPlains Finance, LLC (No. 24-1908) that GreatPlains, another Fort Belknap-owned online lender with a nearly identical corporate structure to Bright Lending, is not an “arm of the tribe” and does not have sovereign immunity. Applying a six-factor test, the court found the most important factor, the financial relationship between the entity and the tribe, weighed against immunity. It noted “no indication” that GreatPlains had returned profits to the tribe over a decade of operation and found that a loan agreement with Newport Funding limited the tribe’s autonomy over the entity.10U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Ransom v. GreatPlains Finance, LLC, No. 24-1908
In July 2025, the Fourth Circuit ruled in Williams v. Martorello that a non-tribal businessman who partnered with the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians was liable for nearly $44 million for operating a racketeering scheme through entities including Big Picture Loans. The court held that Martorello could not hide behind tribal immunity for his day-to-day operation and funding of the business, and that civil RICO claims do not require proof that a defendant knowingly broke the law, only that they collected an unlawful debt.11Courthouse News Service. Fourth Circuit Sides With Virginia Borrowers in Rent-a-Tribe Lending Scheme
The Loans at the Center of the Litigation
Bright Lending is a trade name for Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC, wholly owned by GVA Holdings, LLC, which is itself owned by the Fort Belknap Indian Community. IMDG runs the daily operation, sets interest rates and loan terms, and employs the lending staff.
The company offers short-term installment loans of $300 to $1,200 for new customers and up to $3,000 for repeat borrowers, with terms of 10 to 12 months and biweekly payments. A first-time borrower taking a $500 loan at 725% APR would make 21 biweekly payments of roughly $140, repaying about $2,944, nearly six times the original amount. Repeat “VIP” customers still face APRs around 500%.12Inquirer.net. Bright Lending Reviews and Ratings Late payments trigger a fee of 10% of the overdue amount, and bounced payments carry a $30 charge.13The Yukon Project. Bright Lending Personal Loan Review The loan agreements state that they are governed by tribal law rather than state law, the position at the heart of every suit against the company.
Where Things Stand
As of mid-2025, Bright Lending has stopped lending in Minnesota under the terms of its consent decree, faces active class actions in New Jersey and Illinois, and operates under corporate leadership installed after a 2023 shakeup at Fort Belknap. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has not taken direct enforcement action against Bright Lending itself, though it has pursued other tribal lending operations with similar structures.3Minnesota Attorney General. Online Lenders Settlement Borrowers outside Minnesota who took out Bright Lending loans should watch the New Jersey and Illinois dockets, since class certification in either case would determine who is covered and what relief, if any, is available.