Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/28/2022 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: January 14, 2022

According to the Complaint, FirstCash Holdings, Inc. ("FirstCash" or the "Company") owns and operates pawn stores in the United States and Latin America. As of December 31, 2020, the Company operated over 2,700 pawn stores, with more than 1,000 located in the United States. Formerly, FirstCash also offered domestic payday and installment loans, but ceased offering these services in June 2020.

In September 2016, the Company, then known as First Cash Financial Services Inc., finalized its merger with pawnshop provider and payday lender Cash America International, Inc. (“Cash America”). Following the merger, the combined company changed its name to FirstCash Inc. Similarly, following a December 2021 merger with lending company American First Finance, the Company again changed its name to FirstCash Holdings, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose adverse facts about FirstCash’s business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, as follows: that FirstCash had made more than 3,600 loans to over 1,000 active-duty members of the military and their families at usurious interest rates above 36% – and often exceeding 200% – in violation of the Military Lending Act ("MLA"); that FirstCash’s financial results were, in substantial part, the product of the Company’s violations of the MLA; and that as a result of the foregoing, FirstCash was exposed to a material undisclosed risk of legal, reputational and financial harm if the Company’s violations of the MLA were ever publicly disclosed.

On March 17, 2021, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on May 4, 2022. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on June 8. On July 12, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. After notice from the parties and a further review of the record, on July 13, the Court concluded that it had improvidently granted the Motion to Dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the Dismissal Order and reopen the case.

Protected Content

Please Log In or Sign Up for a free account to access restricted features of the Clearinghouse website, including the Advanced Search form and the full case pages.

When you sign up, you will have the option to save your search queries performed on the Advanced Search form.