Accounts Receivable Management Feed Link

Accounts Receivable Management

Within a credit granting business, accounts receivable management (ARM) refers to policies and procedures for a company’s disposition of accounts receivable — or money owed on credit accounts — including measurements, aging, charge-offs, debt collection, and debt sales. ARM divisions increase the revenue of its parent company even though they are typically quite capital-intensive with state-of-the-art systems and extensive frontline staffing.

Accounts receivable management (ARM) can also refer to the industry that aids credit grantors in recovering debt before or after charge-off. This can include first and third party debt collection agencies, collection law firms, and debt buyers.

LiveVox Discusses the Future of Consumer Contact Technology at iA’s 2016 Large Market Participant Summit

LiveVox Inc., a leading provider of cloud contact center solutions for enterprise operations, announced that LiveVox CEO, Louis Summe, has been invited to join a panel to discuss what macro trends will alter the financial services segment at this week’s Large Market Participant Summit presented by insideARM in Washington D.C. On the session, LiveVox Chief […]


CFPB Targets ARM Industry — Which Practices Should Your Company Avoid?

The CFPB intends for its consent orders to set industry-wide precedents. In March 2016, CFPB Director Richard Cordray referred to consent orders as a guide “to all participants in the marketplace to avoid similar violations and make an immediate effort to correct any such improper practices,” telling the Consumer Bankers Association that any company not following the precedents set by the CFPB’s consent orders is committing “compliance malpractice.”


Appellate Courts Hold Typical Collection Letters Violate FDCPA

The requirements for what debt collectors are required to provide in “snail mail” notices to consumers arises from a patchwork of Federal, State and local laws — as well as case law that often varies by jurisdiction — and many of the requirements are antiquated, dating back to the 1970s. Unfortunately, these dated and contradictory collection letter requirements continue to result in lawsuits and adverse Court decisions against debt collectors.


Convenience Fees: Potential for Mischief?

Two attorneys — one for collections, one for consumers — talk through urgency channels, convenience fees, and due dates. It’s another example of how language that, on the surface, seems helpful and clarifying for a collection agency, can also be seen as deceptive, by a consumer attorney, to the Least Sophisticated Consumer.


CFPB Sets Standards for the Debt Collection Industry Through Enforcement: A Look at Hanna

On January 6, 2016, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed consent order in the CFPB’s lawsuit against Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C. The CFPB brought suit against Hanna & Associates in July 2014, alleging that the law firm and its three principal partners were operating an illegal debt collection lawsuit mill. Holland & Knight attorneys Anthony DiResta and Brian Goodrich break down the consent order.


Wheeler Circulates TCPA Exemption for Fed-Backed Loans

A draft rule to exempt robocalls to collect federal debt from Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 rules was circulated Feb. 17 to the full Federal Communications Commission, an agency spokesman confirmed to Bloomberg BNA. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeks to strike a balance between consumer protections and a congressional directive to allow companies servicing federally issued student loans or mortgages to use autodialers to contact debtors without the need for consumer consent.

hourglass, time, timing, deadline

Unpacking ED’s New PCA Subcontracting Requirements

On December 11th, The Department of Education (ED) cancelled one solicitation that started in July of 2013 and, a mere fourteen minutes later, replaced it with a new one that asks Private Collection Agencies (PCAs) to subcontract out at least 31% of total contract value to small businesses, more than double what the original bid required and a new high for PCAs. In doing so, ED suddenly shifted hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracting fees to many to-be-determined small businesses.