Unmasking the NNA | Investigation No. 1
The Missing Cash Form: Inside the NNA's Federal Class-Action Settlement
By Tye Brown | National Notary Coalition
October 22, 2026 · 7 min read
What happens when thousands of notaries are offered cash in a federal class-action settlement, but the form required to request that money is missing?
That's not a hypothetical question.
It's part of the documented history of a federal lawsuit involving the National Notary Association (NNA) and Signix, Inc.
And according to a sworn declaration filed in federal court, the NNA's own Vice President and Chief Operating Officer acknowledged the omission.
The National Notary Coalition examined the original court records. Here's what they reveal.
The Federal Lawsuit
In September 2008, a group of notaries filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Signix, Inc. and the National Notary Association.
The case, Anderson et al. v. Signix, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The lawsuit alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) involving background-screening disclosures, authorization requirements, and notices to individuals affected by adverse screening decisions.
Among the allegations were that certain consumer reports had been obtained without the required disclosures and written authorizations, and that some individuals had not received the required information when adverse action was taken based on their reports.
The parties ultimately entered into a class-action settlement.
These allegations were resolved through settlement; the settlement itself should not be interpreted as a trial finding that every alleged violation occurred.
Source: Document 39-1, Stipulation of Settlement, pages 1–2.
17,119 Class Members. A Choice Between Cash and NNA Benefits.
According to the sworn declaration of Mark Valera, the preliminary settlement class consisted of 17,119 members, including 424 members of an adverse-action subclass.
The settlement provided two different forms of relief.
16,695 eligible class members were entitled to a $52 benefit for products or services through the NNA website, or they could elect an alternative $52 cash payment.
The 424 adverse-action subclass members were eligible for a separate $250 cash payment, under the settlement terms.
For the 16,695 members eligible for the $52 benefit, there was a catch.
To receive cash instead of the NNA benefit, they had to complete and submit a cash-election form within the required 90-day period.
Members who did not make that election and did not opt out would be presumed to have selected the NNA benefit.
The default was not cash. The default was a benefit connected to the NNA.
Sources: Document 39-1, Sections 2.4 and 4.3; Document 46-3, paragraph 2.
The Form Was Missing
On May 17, 2010, Mark Valera, then Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the NNA, submitted a sworn declaration to the federal court.
In paragraph 4, Valera acknowledged that the cash-election form had inadvertently been omitted from the emailed settlement notices.
The form was identified as Attachment 1 to the settlement notice.
According to his declaration, NNA's counsel informed class counsel of the problem.
The declaration further states that class counsel agreed the NNA did not need to resend the emailed notices with the missing form.
Instead, class counsel agreed to provide the cash-election form to class members who requested it.
Consider what that meant.
Eligible members were required to submit a form to receive cash. The form wasn't included in the emailed notices. And the notices were not resent with the form attached.
The declaration also states that the settlement notice was posted on the NNA website.
What the declaration does not tell us is how many members knew they could request the missing form, how many elected cash, or how many ultimately received the NNA benefit by default.
Those questions remain important.
Source: Document 46-3, Declaration of Mark Valera, paragraph 4, pages 2–3.
More Than 1,300 Emails Were Initially Undeliverable
The same declaration provides another detail.
Valera reported that 1,357 settlement-notice emails had not been delivered to their intended recipients.
According to his statement, NNA subsequently sent settlement notices to those members by U.S. mail on February 1, 2010. He reported that 56 of those mailed notices had been returned.
This is a separate issue from the omitted cash-election form, but it adds important context to how settlement notices were distributed.
Source: Document 46-3, paragraph 5, page 3.
The 7.5% Provision
The missing form wasn't the only provision that caught our attention.
Section 8.2 of the settlement gave the NNA the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate the agreement if more than 7.5% of eligible members elected the $52 cash payment.
The settlement also contained a separate termination provision relating to members who opted out.
That does not establish that NNA exercised either termination right.
But it raises an important question:
Why did the settlement allow the NNA to terminate the agreement if too many eligible members chose cash rather than the organization's benefit?
Source: Document 39-1, Section 8.2, page 19.
What Did the Cash Election Represent?
There were 16,695 members eligible to elect the alternative $52 payment.
If every one of those members had elected cash, the potential amount would have been:
16,695 × $52 = $868,140
Let's be clear about what that number means.
It is a mathematical illustration of the maximum potential $52 cash elections among those eligible members.
It is not evidence that $868,140 was withheld, misappropriated, or left unpaid.
To establish actual cash distributions, we would need records showing how many members elected cash and how payments were ultimately administered.
Coach Tye's Commentary: I Have Questions.
I find this entire situation troubling.
You offer notaries a choice between a $52 credit to spend with your organization and $52 in actual cash.
But the form they need to request their cash isn't included?
Then the decision is made not to resend the emails with the missing form?
And on top of that, the settlement gives the NNA the right to terminate the agreement if more than 7.5% of eligible members choose cash?
Who thought this was a good idea?
Now, I understand that settlements are negotiated agreements. I understand that the court approved a process.
But I'm not here to tell independent notaries what to think.
I'm here to show you the documents and ask why.
How many notaries understood their options?
How many requested the missing form?
How many received cash?
And how many ended up with a benefit from the very organization involved in the lawsuit?
I don't have those final numbers, and I'm not going to invent them.
But I am going to keep asking questions.
Because independent notaries deserve transparency.
Why This Investigation Matters Today
This federal case is only the beginning of what the National Notary Coalition intends to examine.
The broader investigation will look at the relationship between private organizations, background-screening requirements, industry standards, and independent notaries' access to assignments.
Who develops these standards?
Who adopts them?
Who benefits financially?
And who is accountable to the independent notaries expected to comply?
Those questions will be examined in future installments, using documents and other verifiable evidence.
We are not asking you to take our word for it. We are inviting you to examine the records yourself.
Examine the Federal Court Records
Case: Anderson et al. v. Signix, Inc., et al.
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia
Case Number: 3:08-cv-00570-RLW
Document 39-1 — Stipulation of Settlement
Review the provisions covering settlement benefits, the cash-election procedure, the 7.5% termination provision, and the original cash-election form.
Document 46-3 — Sworn Declaration of Mark Valera
Review the original declaration, filed May 17, 2010, particularly paragraphs 2–5, addressing the settlement class, emailed notices, missing cash-election form, and undelivered notices.
These document links open the original court-record PDFs hosted on the National Notary Coalition website.
Want Coach Tye's Take?
The court records provide the evidence. Coach Tye brings the questions, commentary, and a little humor. Subscribe for additional reporting, investigative updates, and the next installment of Unmasking the NNA.
Unmasking the NNA — Investigation No. 1
Published by the National Notary Coalition
Awareness • Advocacy • Transparency
This article distinguishes documented court records, allegations made in litigation, and editorial commentary. Additional findings will be published as they are verified.