MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs have brought this action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and related state claims against defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants operated a scheme (the “Dealers-EAC Scheme”) to fraudulently induce individuals with federal student loan debts to purchase certain services from dealers and to finance that purchase with a loan from defendant Equitable Acceptance Corporation (“EAC”). EAC’s prior motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ RICO claim was denied by the Court in its Memorandum & Order of March 11, 2020. See ECF No. 73 (the “RICO Order”).1 Presently before the Court are three motions: (1) EAC’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ fraudulent conveyance claim; (2) defendants Jeffrey Henn (“Jeffrey”) and Teresa Henn’s (“Teresa”)2 motion to dismiss each claim made against them; and (3) plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the Henns from moving assets out of their trusts and directing EAC to cease all transfers of funds collected as the profits of the Dealers-EAC Scheme. For the following reasons, EAC’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ fraudulent conveyance claim is granted, the Henns’ motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. BACKGROUND The Court detailed the background of this case in the RICO Order. The Court assumes familiarity with this decision and states here only those facts and procedural history necessary to resolve the pending applications. 1. The Dealers-EAC Scheme As described more fully in the RICO Order, plaintiffs allege that around 2015, EAC conspired with dozens of dealers (“Dealers”) to offer purported student loan assistance services (“Services”) to federal student loan borrowers (“Borrowers”). The Dealers introduced their purported Services as providing loan “forgiveness,” when in reality they were simply filing applications on behalf of the Borrowers for loan consolidation and enrollment in repayment programs offered by the Department of Education. SAC
77-80, 94. While Borrowers could have applied to these programs on their own in a process that would have taken approximately ten minutes and cost nothing, the Dealers and EAC charged approximately $1300 for these Services. Id. 129. Because Dealers were prohibited from receiving payments directly from Borrowers under federal regulations, Dealers referred Borrowers to EAC to finance the purchase of Services. Id.
