News in the ARM industry never stops and determining what’s truly relevant can be a challenge. That’s where insideARM’s weekly recap comes in. Our weekly recap of top stories will give you the news we found most interesting last week and, more importantly, why we think it’s relevant. Last week, we brought you details about the new Metro 2 code for DSC activity, news about an interesting decision regarding a debt collector’s attempt to use an underlying creditor’s arbitration clause, and insights into Regulatory enforcement actions.
On Tuesday we brought you details from Troutman Pepper Locke regarding the new Metro 2 special comment code for debt settlement activity. The code was created in response to industry requests for clearer identification of consumer debt settlement activity in credit reporting. Credit furnishers should be sure to read the details to understand practical consideration and their responsibilities with the new code.
On Wednesday we brought you news from Orrick about a lawsuit in which a debt collection law firm was not able to utilize the underlying creditor’s arbitration clause to force a case to arbitration. This decision is an appellate court decision and worth being aware of for broader litigation strategies.
On Thursday we brought you insights from Venable regarding Regulatory engagements that don’t include traditional enforcement actions. This piece walks through a recent example, or public disclosure of remediation outside of a traditional enforcement action and walks through what this could mean for those in the financial services industry.
Have a question about how your company should react to the news above? We have a group for that! The weekly peer roundtable hosted by insideARM’s Research Assistant is the perfect place to engage with industry colleagues facing the same challenges you are. Try it on for size with our 1-month free trial.
