MaxLend, an online installment lender that markets itself as a tribal enterprise of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara (MHA) Nation, is the target of multiple federal lawsuits alleging it operates an illegal “rent-a-tribe” scheme to evade state usury laws. The MaxLend lawsuits, filed in Maryland, Illinois, and Indiana between 2020 and 2023, accuse non-tribal businessmen based in the U.S. Virgin Islands of controlling the lending operation while using the MHA Nation’s sovereign immunity as a shield for interest rates that reach 841% APR. The Illinois case settled privately in 2022; the Maryland and Indiana cases remain pending. MaxLend continues to originate loans.
The Core Allegation: Rent-a-Tribe
Every MaxLend lawsuit rests on the same theory. Plaintiffs allege that David Johnson and Kirk Chewning, co-founders of Cane Bay Partners VI, LLLP in St. Croix, actually control MaxLend’s day-to-day operations, while the MHA Nation’s role amounts to lending its name and sovereign status in exchange for roughly 1% to 2% of revenue.1Turtle Talk. Manago v. Cane Bay Partners VI – Amended Complaint According to the complaints, Cane Bay Partners and affiliated entities handle marketing, underwriting, website design, loan approval algorithms, funding, and risk management.2St. Thomas Source. Cane Bay Partners Faces Class Action Suit Over Payday Lending
In a rent-a-tribe arrangement, a non-tribal company partners with a federally recognized tribe, structures the lending entity as tribally owned on paper, and then invokes the tribe’s sovereign immunity to avoid state and federal consumer lending laws. The non-tribal operators keep most of the profits; the tribe absorbs the legal and reputational risk. Cane Bay Partners denies being a lender. Its general manager stated the firm “is not and has not ever been a lender, nor does it have any ownership stake in any lender.”2St. Thomas Source. Cane Bay Partners Faces Class Action Suit Over Payday Lending
The rates are what make this matter to borrowers. MaxLend’s APRs run from 471% to over 841%, depending on payment frequency and borrower tier.3Financer. MaxLend Review Many states cap consumer loan rates at 36% or lower, with some as low as 8% to 10%.1Turtle Talk. Manago v. Cane Bay Partners VI – Amended Complaint Whether MaxLend can legally charge those rates to borrowers in those states is the question every lawsuit is trying to answer.
The Maryland Class Action: Manago v. Cane Bay Partners
The largest and most detailed suit was filed April 13, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Lead plaintiff Glendora Manago sued on behalf of borrowers from seven states: Maryland, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, Michigan, and South Carolina.4Courthouse News Service. Payday Lender Faces RICO Suit in Rent-a-Tribe Class Action
The amended complaint, filed in December 2020, named Cane Bay Partners VI, Johnson, and Chewning on the non-tribal side. It also named members of the MHA Nation Tribal Business Council in their official capacities, along with officers and board members of Makes Cents, Inc. and Uetsa Tsakits, Inc., the two tribal corporate entities through which MaxLend operated.1Turtle Talk. Manago v. Cane Bay Partners VI – Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs alleged loans “often exceeding 800%” and that defendants were unlicensed lenders in every state where the named plaintiffs lived. The legal claims include violations of the federal RICO Act for collection of unlawful debt, along with state-level claims under the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment and conspiracy theories.5Turtle Talk. Manago v. Cane Bay Partners VI – Plaintiffs’ Response The plaintiffs did not seek monetary damages from the tribal defendants. They asked instead for injunctive and declaratory relief against tribal officials to stop their participation in the enterprise.1Turtle Talk. Manago v. Cane Bay Partners VI – Amended Complaint
The case has involved extensive motion practice over tribal sovereign immunity and personal jurisdiction, with no final resolution reported.
The Illinois Class Action: Combs v. Makes Cents
Combs v. Makes Cents, Inc. et al. was filed January 6, 2022, in the U.S. District Court in Illinois. The complaint made similar rent-a-tribe allegations, claiming MaxLend charged interest rates approaching 700% in violation of the Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act, the Illinois Interest Act, and RICO.6ClassAction.org. MaxLend Operates Illegal Rent-a-Tribe Payday Lending Scheme, Class Action Alleges
It settled fast. The parties notified the court on March 10, 2022, that they had reached a private settlement, and the case was dismissed May 16, 2022. Terms were not disclosed. One detail matters for other borrowers: the named plaintiff’s individual claims were dismissed with prejudice, but the claims of potential class members were dismissed without prejudice. Other Illinois borrowers can still sue.6ClassAction.org. MaxLend Operates Illegal Rent-a-Tribe Payday Lending Scheme, Class Action Alleges
The Indiana Lawsuits
MaxLend has faced at least two federal cases in Indiana. Hanafi v. Uetsa Tsakits, Inc. et al. was filed September 29, 2023, in the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff Mary Hanafi alleged she received a $1,000 loan at 558.72% APR, far above Indiana’s 36% cap for supervised consumer loans. She brought claims under the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code and three separate RICO counts for collection of unlawful debt, seeking treble damages plus attorneys’ fees.7Courthouse News Service. Hanafi v. Uetsa Tsakits – Complaint The case remains pending.8ClaimDepot. MaxLend Faces RICO Usury Lawsuit Seeking Treble Damages
An earlier Indiana suit, Lemmons v. Makes Cents Inc. d/b/a MaxLend, was filed July 21, 2022. The complaint named a broader defendant network: Dimension Credit (Cayman) LP, Strategic Link Consulting LP, Esoteric Ventures LLC, InfoTel International Ltd., and M. Mark High Ltd., all based in Belize or the Cayman Islands, along with individuals Kim Anderson and Jay Clark.9OffshoreAlert. Cane Bay Partners The breadth of that defendant list reflects the plaintiffs’ central claim: the real beneficiaries are a web of non-tribal companies, not the MHA Nation.
Why Williams v. Martorello Matters for MaxLend Borrowers
A July 2025 ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Williams v. Martorello did not involve MaxLend, but it sets precedent that reaches the pending cases. Matt Martorello had set up a nearly identical rent-a-tribe operation through the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. Virginia borrowers with loans exceeding 700% APR sued under RICO. The Fourth Circuit upheld a $43.4 million damages award against Martorello.10Courthouse News Service. Fourth Circuit Sides With Virginia Borrowers in Rent-a-Tribe Lending Scheme
Three rulings from that opinion carry into MaxLend cases:
- State usury law applies to online loans marketed to non-tribal members off the reservation, citing the earlier Hengle v. Treppa decision.11Courthouse News Service. Williams v. Martorello – Fourth Circuit Opinion
- Civil RICO does not require proof that the defendant knew the conduct was illegal, so ignorance of state usury caps is not a defense.11Courthouse News Service. Williams v. Martorello – Fourth Circuit Opinion
- Tribal entities are not indispensable parties. Because the tribal entities in Williams had already settled separately, the court refused to dismiss the case against the non-tribal operator for failure to join them.12Bloomberg Law. Architect of Rent-a-Tribe Payday Loan Scheme Loses RICO Appeal
Together those holdings mean the non-tribal operators of a rent-a-tribe scheme can be held personally liable for large damages even when the tribal entities themselves remain shielded by sovereign immunity. For Johnson and Chewning, the individuals behind Cane Bay Partners, the pending MaxLend cases now carry that risk.
What Borrowers Are Complaining About
The lawsuits track a broader record of consumer grievances. The Better Business Bureau lists 157 complaints against MaxLend over the previous three years, with 75 in the most recent 12 months alone, and rates the company C+, noting it had “failed to resolve underlying cause(s) of a pattern of complaints.”13Better Business Bureau. MaxLend BBB Profile
The complaints follow a pattern. Borrowers say their loan balances barely decrease despite months of payments because most of each payment goes to interest and fees. Others describe unauthorized debits, including debits more frequent than agreed or attempted withdrawals for close to the full balance without warning. Some report aggressive collection calls and texts on loans they say they never authorized.14Better Business Bureau. MaxLend BBB Complaints MaxLend has in some cases responded to BBB complaints by offering reduced settlements, waiving balances, or adjusting payment schedules.
Where Things Stand
The Illinois case has closed on private terms. Maryland and Indiana are still active, and the Fourth Circuit’s Williams ruling gives the plaintiffs stronger footing than they had when the suits were filed. MaxLend, meanwhile, remains open for business. Its website maintains an active loan application portal and still identifies the company as an economic development arm of the MHA Nation, with sovereign immunity disclaimers displayed prominently.15MaxLend. MaxLend Login Borrowers in states with usury caps who took out MaxLend loans should watch the Maryland and Indiana dockets closely; the outcomes there will determine whether the rent-a-tribe defense survives, and whether refunds or damages become available.