Green Arrow Loans Lawsuit: Rates, Class Actions, and Tribal Defense

The Green Arrow Loans lawsuits are a series of class actions accusing the online payday lender of running a “rent-a-tribe” scheme: claiming ownership by the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians to invoke tribal sovereign immunity while the business is actually operated by two non-tribal men out of Utah, charging annual interest rates above 700% in states where such loans are illegal. Plaintiffs bring state usury and consumer-protection claims alongside federal RICO counts. Two cases have settled; one remained pending as of early 2026.

What the Lawsuits Allege

Green Arrow Loans describes itself on its website as “a Tribal enterprise, wholly owned and operated by the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians,” a federally recognized tribe in Northern California.¹ Its loan agreements say every transaction is governed by tribal and federal law and deemed to occur on the reservation, wherever the borrower actually lives.

The complaints tell a different story. In Toler v. Green Arrow Solutions, plaintiffs identify Dan Shaw and Greg Jones as the “true operators and beneficiaries” of the business.² Shaw and Jones manage Nevada Impact Management, LLC, which is the sole managing member of Integra Financial Services, LLC. Those entities handle underwriting, payment processing, and marketing from offices in North Logan, Utah, not from tribal land.³ One complaint noted a small tell: Green Arrow’s posted business hours run on Mountain Time, while the tribe’s reservation is in the Pacific Time Zone.

The tribe, plaintiffs say, receives only a single-digit share of revenue in exchange for the use of its name. Related brands identified in court filings as claiming ownership by the same tribe include Big Valley Financial, Golden Gate Funding, Tremont Lending, Little Lake Lending, and Condor Credit.²

Shaw’s spokeswoman has said his companies act only as “service agents” for the tribe and do not make loans themselves.⁴

The Interest Rates at the Center of the Cases

Green Arrow’s own website has advertised an example $300 loan at an 825% annual percentage rate, repaid over nine biweekly installments.⁵ The Illinois complaint cites two 2022 loans to Illinois borrowers at 844.98% and 804.09% APR.⁶ The Indiana complaint cites loans above 700%, including one at 775%.⁷

Those rates dwarf the caps in the borrowers’ states:

Illinois bars unlicensed lenders from charging more than 9%, and loans above 20% by unlicensed lenders are a felony under the state’s criminal usury statute.³
Indiana caps consumer loan interest at 36% per year.²
Massachusetts limits APRs on loans under $6,000 to 12%.⁴

The Three Class Actions and Where They Stand

Toler v. Green Arrow Solutions — Indiana, 2022

Filed June 15, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, this was the first major class action against the company. Lead plaintiff John Toler alleged that Green Arrow violated the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code by making usurious loans, and that Shaw and Jones violated federal RICO by conducting an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of collecting unlawful debt.² Named defendants included Green Arrow Solutions, Integra Financial Services, Nevada Impact Management, Shaw, and Jones. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the case settled in January 2023 for a “nominal amount.”⁴

Stewart v. Green Arrow Solutions — Massachusetts, 2022

Stewart v. Green Arrow Solutions d/b/a Green Arrow Loans was filed August 12, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, raising RICO claims.⁸ The case was assigned to Judge Leo Sorokin and terminated November 14, 2022, with a settlement reportedly expected in early 2023.⁴

Hall v. Green Arrow Solutions — Illinois, 2023

The most detailed complaint is Hall et al. v. Green Arrow Solutions et al., filed March 15, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Lead plaintiffs Matthew Hall of Cook County and Joann McLaughlin of Will County bring four counts: declaratory and injunctive relief for making illegal usurious loans; violations of the Illinois Interest Act; violations of the Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; and federal RICO violations.⁶ As of a February 2026 update, the case remained pending.³

Why Recent Appellate Rulings Matter Here

Two Fourth Circuit decisions frame the legal terrain the Green Arrow cases are moving through.

In Hengle v. Treppa, decided November 16, 2021, the court held that arbitration clauses requiring exclusive application of tribal law were unenforceable as “prospective waivers” of borrowers’ federal statutory rights. It also found that choice-of-law provisions selecting tribal law over state law violated Virginia’s public policy against usurious lending. The loans at issue carried rates between 544% and 920%, against Virginia’s 12% cap.⁹

In Williams v. Martorello, decided July 16, 2025, the Fourth Circuit affirmed that Matt Martorello, the non-tribal architect of a separate rent-a-tribe operation tied to the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa Indians, was liable for $43.4 million in RICO damages to a class of Virginia borrowers.¹⁰ The court rejected Martorello’s argument that he had acted in good faith believing tribal law protected the scheme, holding that civil RICO claims based on collecting unlawful debt require no proof the defendant knew the debt was illegal.¹¹ The tribal entities themselves were dismissed on sovereign immunity, but the court held that non-tribal individuals participating in such schemes can be personally liable as joint tortfeasors.

The structure the Fourth Circuit found liable in Martorello tracks the allegations against Shaw, Jones, and their companies: non-tribal operators running the lending business off-reservation while paying a tribe a small share of revenue for the use of its name and sovereign status.

The Tribe’s Position

The Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians has not publicly commented on the Green Arrow lawsuits themselves. In a January 2019 submission to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Tribal Chairman Anthony Jack described the tribe’s online lending operations as “wholly-owned and operated by the Tribe” and created under tribal law, calling them an essential source of revenue for tribal government services given limited economic options on the tribe’s rural Northern California land.¹² The tribe argued it should be treated as a “state” under the Dodd-Frank Act and sought a full exemption from the Bureau’s Small Dollar Rule.

Where Borrowers Stand Now

Two of the three class actions have been resolved: the Indiana Toler case settled in January 2023 for what was described as a nominal amount, and the Massachusetts Stewart case terminated in late 2022 with a settlement reportedly following in early 2023. The Illinois Hall case, which combines state usury and consumer-fraud claims with federal RICO counts, remains open and is the vehicle most likely to produce classwide relief for Illinois borrowers who took Green Arrow loans. Borrowers in other states have no active certified class action from this file, though the legal theory in Hall mirrors claims that have succeeded on appeal against similarly structured lenders.

1
Green Arrow Loans. About Green Arrow Loans
2
ClassAction.org. Toler v. Green Arrow Solutions et al., Complaint
3
ClassAction.org. Green Arrow Solutions Facing Rent-a-Tribe Class Action Over Payday Loan Interest Rates
4
Las Vegas Review-Journal. Henderson Councilman’s Payday Loan Business Facing Class-Action Lawsuits
5
Credit Karma. Green Arrow Loan Review
6
ClassAction.org. Hall et al. v. Green Arrow Solutions et al., Complaint
7
ClassAction.org. Payday Lender Green Arrow Solutions Facing Class Action Over High-Interest Loans in Indiana
8
CourtListener. Stewart v. Green Arrow Solutions d/b/a Green Arrow Loans
9
FindLaw. Hengle v. Treppa
10
Courthouse News Service. Fourth Circuit Sides With Virginia Borrowers in Rent-a-Tribe Lending Scheme
11
Courthouse News Service. Williams v. Martorello, Fourth Circuit Opinion
12
Regulations.gov. Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians Comment to BCFP