The Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins was expected to provide clarity to debt industry defendants facing FDCPA and related consumer lawsuits where the Plaintiffs’ allege no actual harm. Unfortunately, the case did little to specify exactly what type of “concrete” harm a consumer must allege to pursue a claim, but did provide some excellent language that can be used to refute consumer lawsuits where no actual harm is or could be alleged.
FTC Director Jessica Rich’s comments came as part of an announcement by the FTC that it had filed a complaint and proposed order against a Texas-based debt collection agency for having deficient policies and procedures related to borrower credit reporting. Through its proposed order, the FTC clarified its expectations for what credit reporting policies and procedures debt collection agencies need to have in order to avert or withstand regulatory scrutiny.
Performant Financial Corporation (PFMT), yesterday announced financial results for first quarter ending March 31, 2016. The company also hosted a conference call to discuss the results. PFMT is one of the few publicly traded companies in the ARM space. The company has also historically been one of the Department of Education’s (ED) top performing private […]
The debt industry has a story, but it is one told about it, rather than by it, generally. And, according to a crisis management consultant, that’s the wrong way for the industry’s stories to be told. Consumer media outlets — your Wall Street Journals; your nightly news segments; your Times, both Financial and New York […]
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 […]
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.”
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.
The Three Lines of Defense, in a highly regulated industry such as the debt indsutry, has become a must and a norm. Regulatory bodies such as the CFPB, the FTC, and the OCC are all expecting to see this type of framework in this industry.
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.
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.