insideARM maintains a free FDCPA resources page to provide the ARM community a destination for timely and topical information on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). This page is generously supported by TransUnion. See the page here or find it in our main navigation bar from any page on insideARM. The cornerstone of the page is […]
Almost two years ago, Kaulkin Ginsberg wrote that there were potentially sizable, albeit risky, collection opportunities in China. Since that blog, China’s non-performing loan (NPL) market has grown substantially and caught the eyes of notable investors – such as Wilbur Ross, chairman of private-equity firm WL Ross & Co. – and reporters in the U.S. […]
The Seventh Circuit’s ruling stems from three consumers that brought suit against three debt collection agencies for violating the FDCPA’s broad prohibition on false, deceptive or misleading representations threatening to take action that collectors do not intend to actually take. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). In each case, the agency had previously filed suit against the consumer in state court. The consumers argued in their lawsuits, however, that the suits against them violated the FDCPA because the agencies never had the intention of proceeding to trial; rather, the consumers alleged that the suits were brought solely to obtain a default judgment or settlement. The proof, the consumers argued, was the fact that each debt collector later moved for voluntary dismissal of their lawsuits.
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.