of financing one’s education through a federally insured debt consolidation program puts the offer of such consolidation on a higher plane of value vis-a-vis other offers of credit.” Defendant points to the benefits of a FFEL consolidation loan in general, and of obtaining such a loan from Defendant in particular. (Doc. # 46 at 9-10.) Defendant states that the HEA requires that Defendant honor its FFEL consolidation loan offers, and that in any event, Defendant, in fact, honors such offers made to eligible borrowers. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs complaint is “one of a plethora of recent class actions filed across the country ... challenging mail pieces of all sorts,” based upon a misreading of a Seventh Circuit case, Cole v. U.S. Capital, Inc., 389 F.3d 719 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>), as “dictating that every piece of mail must
holding that because the fcra does not require the disclosure in a firm offer of credit of amount of credit and interest rates courts should not imply such additional disclosure requirements explaining that the import of cole was that a firm offer of credit must have economic value rather than which terms must be included holding that federal express fee required by lender was a transaction imposed by the lender as incident to the extension of credit and needed to be disclosed within the finance charge holding that the fcras provision that a lender may only use and obtain consumer credit information for the purpose of making a firm offer of credit requires that the lender offer something of value as an extension of credit alone recognizing statutory credit holding that a mailing which stated because of your excellent credit you have been preapproved for a home loan up to 100 of the value of your home  was a firm offer of credit