Don Maurice is President of Maurice & Needleman, P.C., whose attorneys specialize in all areas of creditors’ rights and financial services litigation. In nearly 25 years of practice, Don has successfully litigated for the financial services industry in both State and Federal courts. He has provided defense for claims brought under the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, FDCPA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Magnuson-Moss Act and other state consumer lending regulations. Don is peer-rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell, the worldwide guide to lawyers. He has been recognized by Law & Politics Magazine as a New Jersey Super Lawyer in Bankruptcy & Debtor/Creditor Law and as a Corporate Counsel Super Lawyer. His firm has been named a “Go-to Law Firm for the Top 500 Companies,” and a “Go-to Financial Law Firm” by Corporate Counsel Magazine/ALM Publications. He currently serves as vice chair of the Debt Collection Practices and Bankruptcy Subcommittee of the American Bar Association’s Consumer Financial Services Committee, Business Law Section.
A U.S. Circuit Court decision this summer took an extraordinary step when it held that filing a proof of claim on time barred debt is conduct that violates the FDCPA. At the time, attorneys close to both bankruptcy and FDCPA proceedings warned that it would touch off a very real firestorm in that sector of the ARM industry. That has proven to be quite true.
On the heels of a June 30 decision finding that a New Jersey law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because its attorneys spent four seconds reviewing a pleading, a complaint seeking class certification has been filed against the same firm, citing findings of fact from the adverse court opinion.
Last month’s 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim to be made against a bankruptcy proof of claim filed on out-of-statute debt will get a rehearing if a petition filed by LVNV Funding, LLC is granted.
Companies that hire vendors to place automated calls to cell phones may find themselves at greater risk for Telephone Consumer Protection Act troubles following a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp. The recent decision follows a May 2013 ruling from the Federal Communications Commission in In re […]
Buried in the FTC’s announced settlement with an auto lender last week over debt collection practices was a seemingly new set of standards for debt collectors. The directives addressing FCRA and debt collection compliance suggest regulators are toughening certain standards and, in some cases, creating entirely new standards for certain debt collection activities.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) requires a call placed to a cellular phone using an autodialer to have the prior express consent of the person who received the call, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held this past Friday in a ruling that went against the creditor defendant.
Last week the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the consolidated appeals of McMahon v. LVNV Funding and Delgado v. Capital Management Services concerning the collection of time-barred debt without the threat of litigation. The result is not good for the credit and collections industry, principally because it further confuses application of the FDCPA across the nation.
Recent remarks from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Deputy Director Steven Antonakes indicate that the CFPB remains particularly interested in data integrity during debt collection.
A jurist praised by The New York Times for his administration of credit card debt collection cases was recently the subject of a harsh rebuke from a New York appellate court for the same judicial practices.
The CFPB Monday announced that a mortgage lender was assessed a civil monetary penalty of $83,000, arising from illegally splitting real estate settlement fees. The news, though, is that the company self-reported the violation.