AFL Financial Services ran the same robocall under 10 company names from Toronto and Orlando for three years before a $13.1 million settlement
The FTC alleged that Baird B. Fisher, Jacqueline M. Fisher and six other defendants ran a credit card interest rate reduction scheme from at least 2007, using more than 10 company names including "AFL Financial Services" and telemarketing boiler rooms in Orlando, Florida, directed from Toronto, Canada and the Rochester, New York area. A federal court froze the operation's assets in November 2010 after the FTC said it took in nearly $13 million from nearly 13,000 consumers at a flat $995 fee. Four defendants settled with the FTC in February 2012, agreeing to a $13.1 million judgment suspended to $159,000 and permanent bans from telemarketing and debt relief sales.
- Year
- 2010
- Where
- United States, Canada
- Outcome
- Settled
- Victims
- 13,000
- Schemes
- Credit card interest rate reduction scams
- Last reviewed
- 2026-10-19
The facts, as recorded
- The FTC filed its complaint under seal in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, naming Direct Financial Management Inc., 2194673 Ontario Inc. (doing business as The Elite Financial Group), F&F Payment Processing Inc., Bajada Management Group Inc., David D. Richards, Baird B. Fisher, Jacqueline M. Fisher and Joseph B. Foley; Judge Joan H. Lefkow entered a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze on November 8, 2010, halting operations and appointing a receiver over the two US corporate defendants.
- The FTC alleged the defendants had used at least 10 different company names since at least 2007, including AFL Financial Services, operating telemarketing boiler rooms in Orlando, Florida while directed from Toronto, Canada and the Rochester, New York area.
- Robocalls allegedly charged a flat $995 fee, promising to cut credit card interest rates and let consumers pay off debt three to five times faster, with a guaranteed refund if the consumer didn't save at least $2,500; the FTC said the defendants failed to deliver the promised rate cuts, and when consumers complained, the callers stopped responding.
- The FTC alleged nearly 13,000 consumers lost almost $13 million; some credit card issuers told the agency they refused to participate in the calls as a matter of policy.
- Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General, Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office, filed a parallel lawsuit in Canada seeking assets for consumer redress on both sides of the border.
- On February 8, 2012, a federal court entered a consent order settling the FTC's claims against four defendants, including F&F Payment Processing Inc., Bajada Management Group Inc., Baird B. Fisher and Jacqueline M. Fisher: a $13.1 million judgment, suspended upon payment of $159,000, permanent bans from robocalling, telemarketing and selling debt relief services, and a requirement to destroy collected consumer personal information within 30 days. Four other defendants remained in default at the time of the settlement.
Why this case matters
It is the earliest documented version of this scheme on this page, running from at least 2007, and shows the pattern that every later case repeats: a telemarketing boiler room in one place, directed from another, operating under far more company names than the number of people actually running it.
Ten names, one script
The FTC’s complaint describes an operation that, by its own account, had used more than 10 different business names over roughly three years, including AFL Financial Services, while making the same robocall promise: a permanent interest rate cut, guaranteed savings, a refund if it didn’t work out. The boiler rooms making the calls sat in Orlando, Florida, while the people the FTC named as responsible were based in Toronto and the Rochester, New York area, an early example of the cross-border structure that recurs across this site’s other institutional-fee and shell-company schemes.
A judgment far larger than what was recovered
The $13.1 million judgment against the four settling defendants was suspended once they paid $159,000, the standard outcome when a court accepts a defendant’s sworn financial disclosures showing they cannot pay the full amount. The gap between the judgment and the amount actually recovered illustrates why FTC refunds in these cases, including the later Life Management Services and GDP Network cases on this page, typically return only a small fraction of what consumers originally paid.
The caveat
The February 2012 order explicitly states it is for settlement purposes only and is not an admission of wrongdoing by any defendant. Four other defendants named in the original 2010 complaint, Direct Financial Management Inc., 2194673 Ontario Inc., David D. Richards and Joseph B. Foley, were reported to remain in default at the time of the 2012 settlement, and this page has not verified how, or whether, those claims were later resolved.
Sources
- FTC's Request, Court Shutters International Robocall Operation. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-10-19. Supports: The November 8, 2010 temporary restraining order, the full list of eight named defendants, the 2007 start date, the 10-plus company aliases, the Toronto/Rochester/Orlando locations, the $995 fee, the nearly $13 million from nearly 13,000 consumers, and the Ontario parallel action.
- AFL Financial. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-10-19. Supports: The February 8, 2012 consent order, the $13.1 million judgment suspended to $159,000, the permanent telemarketing and debt-relief bans, the four defendants who remained in default, and the personal-information destruction requirement.