A Utah debt collection company that Connecticut regulators fined $140,000 earlier this year has reached a new settlement with the state that slashes that penalty by nearly two-thirds and vacates the original order. The decision came April 1 after the company’s principals provided evidence to the state Department of Banking that they had disciplined employees […]
A Utah debt collection company that Connecticut regulators fined $140,000 earlier this year has reached a new settlement with the state that slashes that penalty by nearly two-thirds and vacates the original order.
The decision came April 1 after the company’s principals provided evidence to the state Department of Banking that they had disciplined employees who violated a prior state consent order.
Banking Commissioner Jorge Perez issued the new order against Zions Debt Holdings LLC of Orem, Utah, and its managing members Christopher Thayne Carter and Brian Scott Fuller,
replacing a Feb. 10 cease-and-desist order and civil penalty.
Under the new settlement, the three respondents are liable for a $50,000 civil penalty, plus $400 in back licensing fees.
Carter contacted the department Feb. 24 seeking reconsideration of the February order, and the respondents submitted evidence that after a prior December 2024 consent order, Carter and Fuller had communicated in writing to Zions’ employees that contacting Connecticut consumers was prohibited — and that two employees who did so anyway were disciplined.
The respondents also represented that Zions had not collected any payments from Connecticut consumers since the 2024 order was issued, and that the company’s website was updated to disclose that it is not licensed as a consumer collection agency in Connecticut.
Under the April settlement, Zions is barred for five years from acting as a consumer collection agency in Connecticut, directly or indirectly. The company and its principals must also notify the department within 10 days of any contact with a Connecticut consumer during that same five-year window.
The respondents did not admit or deny the underlying allegations as part of the agreement.