Featured Post Feed Link

Featured Post

Browse all ARM topics

wrong-way

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.”

letters2

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.

CFPB

Online Lenders’ Use of ACH Can Lead to Cascading Fees, Account Closures for Consumers, CFPB Report Finds

Online lenders’ use of ACH networks to request payments can result in mounting fees and even account closure for borrowers with insufficient funds. That’s according to a new study from the CFPB, which took a look at the ACH behavior of lenders who, per the Bureau, make “online payday or other high-cost online loans with payments scheduled on a borrower’s payday.”

Summary Judgment Granted in TCPA Case Against Navient and Affiliate – Awards $360K, Possibly More

An Order granting partial summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff in a TCPA case against Navient and its affiliate, Student Assistance Corporation, was entered on April 6. The summary judgment order translates to an award of over $360,000, with the potential for additional liability once the case proceeds to trial on the issue of whether the defendants should be liable for treble damages under the statute. The case presents several interesting facts and issues.