Mr. Hermann’s practice is dedicated to protecting the rights of Michigan consumers from false and deceptive business practices. Mr. Hermann has represented hundreds of consumers who have been the victims of a variety of business scams. Ares of Practice include: Consumer Protection Act Claims; Lemon Law Magnuson Moss Warranty Claims; Predatory Lending Claims; Credit Reporting Errors; Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Notable cases include:

Lease Acceptance Corporation v. Vinson Abell et al. Mr. Hermann represented several out of state victims in a suit brought by a Michigan leasing company. The suit involved over 300 out of state individuals that were involved in a Ponzi scheme. Victims were encouraged to attend a three day all expense paid trip to Southern California to attend a training seminar on how to become an exclusive installer of alarm systems for a specified geographic area. The victims were primarily non-English speaking residents of Arizona, California, and Washington. Victims were told that if they agreed purchase the necessary “proprietary computer equipment” they would receive a guaranteed number of “installation appointments” or else the company would agree to pay their operating costs. The perpetrators had an exclusive arraignment with Lease Acceptance Corporation (LAC) to finance the sale of the “proprietary computer equipment.”  As part of the scheme, the perpetrators received an immediate cash bonus from LAC once the lease agreement was executed.  The cash that the perpetrators received from LAC was used to pay the monthly operating expenses for the initial investors with the surpluses retained as profit. In 2004, the operation was shut down by the Federal Trade Commission.  The principal operators were eventually convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and/or wire fraud. Despite their participation in the scheme, LAC filed suit against each of the defaulting parties in Michigan relying on the forum selection clause that were contained in each of the lease agreements.  In an initial decision, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case back to the court of appeals to determine if Michigan was a reasonably convenient forum to adjudicate the dispute. In a subsequent decision, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s ruling that Michigan was not a reasonably convenient forum to adjudicate the dispute.