Archives for November 2018

SinglePoint Group International, Inc. is pleased to announce and welcome Jennifer McLeod as Vice President of Business Development.  Jennifer will be responsible for developing new business opportunities and creating customized solutions for customer needs.

Jennifer is a well-known figure in the BPO industry with more than twelve years of experience. The last eight years of her career was spent at Teleperformance as Vice President of Business Development where she was instrumental in the growth of the company.  Within the industry, Jennifer has also held Vice President of Business Development positions with Voxdata and CEAD fm.  She also sits on the CMA advisory and has been an active member of the CMA for over 9 years, contributing frequently on Customer Experience issues.

In addition, Jennifer has a proven record of facilitating long term business relationships with both customers and industry leaders.  Her strong winning attitude and personality are assets that will complement and enhance SinglePoint’s ability to meet the needs of our customers as we continue to provide quality and innovative services to the marketplace.

SinglePoint offers integrated customer lifecycle management and customer experience management services that will significantly improve the way you stay engaged with your customers. Please contact Jennifer McLeod  at 647 292 7871 or jennifer.mcleod@singlepointgi.com.

For more information about SinglePoint Group International Inc., please visit the website at www.singlepointgi.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, a case that asks whether enforcing a security interest on a mortgage debt by initiating a nonjudicial foreclosure through state law-required procedures is considered debt collection under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). On Wednesday, November 14, 2018, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP or Bureau) filed an amicus brief in this case stating the law firm’s actions fall outside of the FDCPA.

[article_ad]

Case Background

As a brief factual background, the petitioner had a mortgage with Wells Fargo. After petitioner defaulted on the mortgage, Wells Fargo placed the account with McCarthy  & Holthus LLP (McCarthy), a law firm, to collect on the debt. McCarthy sent a couple of letters to petitioner, at least one of which stated that McCarthy “may be considered a debt collector attempting to collect a debt” and contained a notice of petitioner’s 1692g validation rights. At one point, petitioner disputed the debt requesting validation, notifying McCarthy that he is represented by an attorney, and requesting a cease in communications. McCarthy did not send verification of the debt to petitioner, instead it initiated the nonjudicial foreclosure process by filing a notice with a public trustee as required by Colorado law.

Petitioner sued McCarthy alleging it violated the FDCPA by initiating the nonjudicial foreclosure. The district court ruled in favor of McCarthy, finding that initiating a nonjudicial foreclosure is not considered “debt collection” per the FDCPA. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari on this case.

BCFP’s Amicus Brief

In its amicus brief, the Bureau extensively discussed the process of enforcing a security interest. In the case of mortgage foreclosures, the security interest usually rests in the property at issue. To enforce this security interest, creditors can proceed with a judicial foreclosure or, if applicable state law allows it, a nonjudicial foreclosure.

Even though they are less formal than their judicial counterpart, nonjudicial foreclosure procedures contain protections for consumers. In Colorado, the state at issue here, even the nonjudicial foreclosure process requires some level of court intervention. The Bureau states:

Congress reasonably determined that enforcing security interests in accordance with applicable law does not present the same risks as demanding payment from debtors directly. The enforcement of security interests has long been subject to an extensive body of state law that provides substantial safeguards.

The Bureau also turned to the language of the FDCPA. When it comes to enforcing security interests, the FDCPA only applies to actions referenced in Section 1692f(6). Section 1692f(6) reads that it is an unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt if the debt collector takes a nonjudicial action “where there is no right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest.” Since the FDCPA creates this restriction, the Bureau stated that “enforcing a security interest, by itself, is not debt collection” unless it meets the requirements of Section 1692f(6).

Based on the above, the Bureau concludes:

McCarthy did not engage in debt collection by initiating a nonjudicial-foreclosure proceeding under Colorado law. Actions that are legally required to enforce a security interest are not debt collection under the FDCPA — except for purposes of 15 U.S.C. 1692f(6), which is not at issue here. Nonjudicial foreclosure is ‘the enforcement of [a] security interest’ and filing a notice with a public trustee is undisputedly a necessary step in that process in Colorado. Deeming such activities debt collection would bring the FDCPA into conflict with state law and effectively preclude compliance with state foreclosure procedures. No sound basis exists to assume Congress intended that result.

insideARM Perspective

The Bureau’s amicus brief is consistent with what appears to be Acting Director Mick Mulvaney’s mission since taking over: keeping its positions within the limits set by Congress in the statutes. The first insight into the Bureau’s direction was when Acting Director Mulvaney changed the name of the Bureau to what the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act called for. In this case, the Bureau takes a similar, statutory-based position.

This brief also suggests that the Bureau is aware of and trying to work in sync with state consumer protection laws. Once the Bureau’s third party debt collection rules come out (currently slated for March 2019, but the release date has been pushed back several times in the past), it will be interesting to see how the Bureau’s rules interact with state laws.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — DCM Services, Inc. (DCMS), the industry leader in estate and specialty account recovery solutions, announced today the promotion of Martha Hanson to Chief Compliance Officer/Senior Counsel.

Hanson, who most recently served as Director of Compliance/Senior Counsel, will continue to ensure the company meets compliance responsibilities and abides by applicable rules and regulations. She also will continue to serve as the lead legal advisor to the company.

Hanson joined the organization in 2006 as an attorney, providing legal guidance related to probate and collection matters. Early in her career she was charged with formalizing and overseeing the company’s complaint management program. She relies on her industry and organizational experience in offering recommendations.

“Martha is an invaluable member of the senior team at DCMS, said Tim Bauer, DCMS Chief Executive Officer. “Her involvement in our ongoing compliance initiatives has been amazing. Her legal and practical counsel in general corporate matters has been helpful to me and the company. She has also been instrumental in our company’s participation in and contributions to the Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC). Over the past year, Martha’s professional growth has been quite evident. That growth lead to this well-deserved promotion.”

Hanson holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Marquette University and a Juris Doctor degree from Hamline University School of Law.

About DCM Services

Minneapolis-based DCM Services, is the industry leader in estate and specialty account resolution services, maximizing the value of client portfolios across financial services, healthcare, retail, and telecom industries through innovation and performance. Its recovery solutions offer a full range of services from proprietary web-based solutions to full outsourcing, maintaining an unmatched spectrum of innovative solutions that increase recoveries, protect brand value, and enhance survivor relationships – with respect and sensitivity. For more information on all DCM Services’ offerings, visit www.dcmservices.com.

I hate to break it to you, but I have a rather ugly decision to report to you out of the Middle District of Florida involving class discovery.

It’s one of those class discovery rulings that just sends shivers up your spine. Where – over what were seemingly specific declarations establishing the substantial burdens of trying to extract and produce massive amounts of customer account data – a magistrate judge decided to go with the declarations of experts who claimed to know better, and said the task at hand would actually be easy, peezy, lemon squeezy…  Or something to that effect.

In Clark v. FDS Bank & Dep’t Stores Nat’l Bank, No. 6:17-cv-692, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190518 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2018) the Plaintiff moved to compel Defendant to produce its records detailing effectively everything about each phone number it called within the past four years, including whether the recipient told the Defendant not to call the phone number again, and the account notes concerning each and every single call. The requests at issue were of astonishing breadth, and effectively sought to turn the Defendant inside out so that Plaintiff could figure out his theory of certification.

In response to the motion Defendant argued that the requests were overly burdensome and, in support of its objections, offered numerous declarations from its legal staff detailing the burden associated with extracting the account-level data (including agent notes) demanded by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff countered with the declaration of Jeff Hansen in which Hansen proclaimed “extensive experience dealing with data warehousing,” and knowledge of the specific dialing system (though not the specific account-level systems of record is seems) used by the Defendant. He stated in the declaration that, contrary to the specific declarations submitted by Defendant, it would take him “less than an hour” to export all the data Plaintiff wants from Defendant’s collection notes.  Mmm hmm…

What was really odd, however, is that Hansen attached the declaration of expert Robert Biggerstaff from another unrelated TCPA class action that Hansen claimed supported his position. Notably missing from either of these declarations – at least the portions relied upon by the Court – was any specific discussion regarding the specific systems of record used by Defendant, or anything beyond some conclusory statements about how “easy” it would be to extract the data Plaintiff had sought in discovery.

But what was truly shocking is that, in a one liner – and without really providing any explanation – the Court stated that it was persuaded by Plaintiff’s evidence that “Defendants’ business records may not be as difficult to search as they contend,” and granted the motion. So with a flick of its pen (or keyboard) the Court is now requiring the Defendant to turn over tens of millions of account notes associated with the tens of millions of calls made by the Defendant within the past four years.

Yiiiikes.

Now, this isn’t exactly the end of the story. The Court granted the motion, but directed the parties to meet and confer over how this data transfer would occur, and stated that if the parties couldn’t resolve the matters between themselves – which it seems doubtful they will – that the Court will hold an evidentiary hearing where it would hear from the experts and dictate the process and procedure to the parties.

But things shouldn’t be this way. Notably, the Czar was able to beat back very similar discovery requests in a TCPA class action that were propounded by the same class counsel. Tillman v. Ally Fin. Inc., No. 2:16-cv-313-FtM-99CM, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1887, at *17 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2017). And earlier this year Quicken was successful in defeating a motion to compel production of every shred of documentation in any form about every do-not-call request that Quicken received. See Nece v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-2605-T-23CPT, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31346 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2018).

If anything, these divergent outcomes show just how high the stakes are in these class discovery disputes. Class counsel will be looking to turn Defendants inside out so they can forage for whatever they can use to stitch together a theory of certification. As the Czar has reported, this problem is compounded as courts frequently let over-broad failsafe classes slip past the pleading stage. And it’s no coincidence that this is the very type of class definition the Defendant is dealing with in the Clark case.

—

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Womble Bond Dickinson. WBD powers our TCPA case law chart and provides a steady stream of their timely, insightful and entertaining take on this ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment topic. WBD – and all insideARM articles – are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved.

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.

The centerpiece of the page is a chart of significant FDCPA cases. Case information and analysis is provided by Joann Needleman, a Clark Hill attorney and leader of the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Regulatory & Compliance Group. Where insideARM has published a story on the case, a link is provided.

—

Stewart v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, No. 17-CV-2745 (E.D.N.Y. Oct 4, 2018)

Main Issue: Does a law firm’s collection letter require mentioning court costs when the collection lawsuit is not yet filed or still pending?

Conclusion: No

A law firm sent a collection letter to the consumer stating that it intended to file a collection lawsuit in state court. The letter did not include a disclosure that the firm would collect court costs or fees, which were ultimately requested when the suit was filed. The consumer sued saying that the letter was false and misleading due to this omission. The court found that the letter was not deceptive or misleading because court costs would only become due if the debt collector prevailed in the lawsuit. This means that the balance would remain static even while the suit was pending and no disclosure was needed per the Second Circuit’s Taylor v. Financial Recovery Services decision.

[article_ad]

Wise v. Credit Control Services, Inc., No. 16-CV-8128 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2018)

Main Issue: Is a debt collector sufficiently on notice of a consumer’s refusal to pay from (1) a fax received by an affiliated company or (2) a fax sent to the debt collector containing incorrect account information?

Conclusion: No

The consumer, with guidance from her attorney, sent two faxes to two separate numbers. One fax was sent to a company affiliated with and working under the same umbrella company as the debt collector, but the affiliated company did not engage in collecting debts. The consumer’s attorney found the affiliated company’s fax number in a job advertisement for the debt collector. The second fax was sent to defendant, but it contained incorrect account information. Specifically, the fax contained the consumer’s correct name and last four digits of her social security number, but it referenced a creditor and account number that was not associated with that particular debt collector. After the debt collector sent another collection letter to the consumer, this FDCPA lawsuit was filed.

The court found that neither letter put the debt collector sufficiently on notice of the refusal to pay. The court noted consumerdid not cite relevant case law and provided no reason sufficient for the court to extend liability to the debt collector for a fax received by the affiliated company, so the court considered the argument waived. The court also found that the second fax was insufficient to support the consumer’s claims. The FDCPA only requires a debt collector to honor a refusal to pay for the particular debt listed in the refusal. Since the subsequent collection letter did not relate to the incorrect debt listed in the second fax, there was no violation.

Williams v. Harris, Klein Associates, Inc., No. 17-CV-03473 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2018)

Issue: Does a debt collector’s refusal to discuss a debt with a debt settlement company violate the FDCPA?

Conclusion: No

Consumer retained a debt settlement company to assist with her debt. The debt settlement company sent a power of attorney to the debt collector for a “Bria Williams” whereas the debt collector’s records showed the consumer’s name as “Monet Williams.” After sending the power of attorney, an agent of the debt settlement company called the debt collector with the consumer on the line to provide verbal authorization to speak to the debt settlement company. The debt collector refused to discuss the debt with the debt settlement company because the name and address in the power of attorney did not match the name and address on the collection letter. The court ruled that established case law shows that FDCPA protections do not apply to conversations with third parties such as the agent for the debt settlement company. Since the FDCPA did not apply to the conversation in question, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the debt collector. The court also admonished plaintiff’s counsel for not mentioning relevant caselaw that precluded his client’s claim even though he was counsel of record on both of those prior cases.

Guzman v. HOVG, LLC, No. 18-CV-3013 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2018)

Issue: Does including a validation notice that follows the statutory language listed in section 1692g (a)(3)-(5) violate the FDCPA?

Conclusion: Yes

In its letter, the debt collector included a notice of validation rights that followed the language in section 1692g of the FDCPA. The court found that this language is subject to two interpretations — that a dispute per 1692g (a)(3) can be oral or written — when only one of those interpretations is true, as least in the Third Circuit (the Third Circuit requires 1692g (a)(3) disputes to be in writing). The court noted that there is a circuit split on this issue, and that this circuit split is evidence that the FDCPA language is subject to more than one interpretation. According to the court, “[i]f the federal appellate courts have divided on the best reading, then surely the least sophisticated debtor would be similarly confused.” The court also took some issue with the notice being on the back of the letter. The court found that stating “see reverse side for important consumer information” did not adequately inform the consumer of the nature of the notice on the back page since the front side of the letter instructed the consumer multiple times to call with any questions.

On September 24, 2018 the Department of Education’s (ED) announced the completion of Phase I of its Next Generation Financial Services Environment (NextGen or Solicitation) and listed those firms selected to move forward to bid on Phase II. insideARM wrote about this here. The following firms were selected to bid on the components covering Business Process Operations:

• Edfinancial Services LLC
• General Dynamics Information Technology Inc (GDIT)
• Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA)
• Nelnet Diversified Solutions, LLC
• Oklahoma Student Loan Authority (OSLA)
• Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA)
• Teleperformance
• Trellis Company
• Utah Higher Education Assistance Authority (UHEAA)

The announcement also included some material changes to the scope of the Soliciation, which has spawned yet another round (I have dubbed this Chapter 5) of protests regarding an ED Solicitation for federal student loan servicing.

Here is the brief history that describes how we got to Chapter 5

What began in 2009 as a 5-year contract for 17 large (unrestricted) and five small debt collection companies became a contract in 2014 for 11 small companies and a delay for the large firm awards. Eventually, in December 2016 seven large companies received awards, which launched dozens of protests from those who were left out, followed by a re-do, a whittling down to just 2 large companies, then more protests, and then… nothing. No large company awards at all. The whole thing was cancelled. ED’s justification for cancelling was:

“The solicitation will be cancelled due to a substantial change in the requirements to perform collection and administrative resolution activities on defaulted Federal student loan debts. In the future, ED plans to significantly enhance its engagement at the 90-day delinquency mark in an effort to help borrowers more effectively manage their Federal student loan debt. ED expects these enhanced outreach efforts to reduce the volume of borrowers that default, improve customer service to delinquent borrowers, and lower overall delinquency levels.”

(A recap with additional detail on the first four chapters is here.)

So, this is where the current NextGen Solicitation comes in. Those who will be on this contract will be the ones to implement the “enhanced servicing” strategies that are meant to reduce defaults.

As for the genesis of NextGen, in June 2017 Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced the hiring of Dr. A. Wayne Johnson as Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), and said he would be in charge of modernizing the agency. Sixty days later, FSA announced a “Next Generation” plan that would drastically streamline systems and processes, and improve borrower service. It was unclear at the time exactly where defaulted accounts would fit in the realm of NextGen, but a diagram released in December 2017 (and revised in February 2018) did include “Default Servicing” and “Recovery” modules (though few details were released). The diagram did note the existence of “PCAs” in this stage.

Five firms submit GAO protests

During the first week of October 2018, FMS Investment Corp. (FMS) and Continental Service Group (ConServe) filed protests with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the terms of the Federal Student Aid (FSA) NextGen procurement. Their claim is that ED has unfairly changed the nature of the Solicitation, and excluded Private Collection Agencies (PCAs) from the ability to compete. insideARM wrote about this protest on October 11, 2018.

The following firms filed GAO Protests as of today:

• FMS, filed 10/9/18
• ConServe, filed 10/9/18
• TPUSA, Inc. (Teleperformance), filed 10/26/18
• Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA), filed 10/31/18
• Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), filed 10/29/18

On October 26, 2018 GAO denied ED’s motion to dismiss the protest filed by FMS and ConServe and directed the government to produce the record to the protestors by November 8, 2018. As of this writing, none of the outcomes of these protests have been decided.

It’s not terribly surprising that FMS and ConServe filed protests, as they were left out of Phase I because the scope of the procurement did not include services for loans in default, yet the revised procurement does include these services… and, only those selected in Phase I are eligible to participate in Phase II.

What is interesting is that three of the protests now filed are by firms that were selected in Phase I. They’ve got a beef with the change in scope too.

The fairly heavily redacted MOHELA protest makes these claims:

• The RFP seeks “Transitional Core Processing and Related Support Activities” (also known as Component D) for federal student aid within the context of the Agency’s overarching two-phase procurement. This protest contests ED’s attempt to move significant services to the RFP in Phase Il where those services had been included in a different component under Phase I.
• ED’s new procurement approach is against the law because it attempts to acquire a new loan servicing environment together with the actual loan servicing for its entire current portfolio of over 37 million student loan accounts from a single entity; whereas, the FY 2019 Appropriations Act only permits the ED to acquire a new loan servicing environment where it “provides for the participation of multiple student loan servicers that contract directly with the Department of Education.”
• In response to the Phase I Solicitation, MOHELA submitted a proposal as a prime contractor under Components E and F, which were described in the Phase I Solicitation as multiple-award procurements encompassing “all” business process operations, and MOHELA was included among the offerors selected to participate in the Phase II solicitation for Components E and F (No. 91003118R0024). Significantly, because MOHELA had no basis to expect that business process operations were included in Component D, MOHELA did not submit a response to Component D under the Phase I Solicitation.
• When ED issued the Phase II Solicitation for Component D on September 24, 2018, it modified the requirements to add business process operations, including contact center support, student aid back-office processing and print/mail services, which scope had been removed from the solicitation for Components E and F. Under the Phase II RFP, all of these added requirements are to be acquired together with the new loan servicing environment for current borrowers under Component D via a single contract award.
• Although some of those services added to Component D are described as “transitional,” the anticipated contract will have a ten-year term and there is no defined milestone to transfer servicing of the student loan accounts. Moreover, despite ED’s movement of substantial services from Components E and F, which has increased the estimated value of the Component D contract by [redacted] in the first year alone and by [redacted] if the full ten-year term is carried out, the RFP limits the competition to the four offerors selected in Phase I for Component D.
• While ED may contend that awarding a single system, single servicer contract under Component D of Phase II will be more administratively convenient than awarding multiple contracts under Component F of Phase II, or that the loan servicers can participate by teaming or subcontracting with the Component D finalists, such arguments do not justify bundling the requirements.

MOHELA is requesting that the GAO require ED to remove business process operations from Component D of the Phase II RFP and proceed with Phase II as originally contemplated, or alternatively, require that ED cancel the current Phase II RFP and issue a new solicitation that provides for multiple loan servicers and accurately reflects ED’s needs.

New protest also filed at the Court of Federal Claims

Remember the Court of Federal Claims? We spent a lot of time there during the first four chapters of this story. And, we’re back there again.

On November 2, 2018, Navient filed a protest at the Court of Federal Claims against Phase II of the Next Gen procurement. They claim that the requirements changed significantly to the point of completely overturning their bid areas.

Here’s what they claim in their also pretty heavily redacted complaint:

• When issued, the NextGen RFP contained nine discrete components, and indicated that integration among the components was a key concern for ED. And, ED didn’t mention or reserve the right to cancel or otherwise materially modify individual components prior to the award.
• In late August 2018, after Phase I proposals were due but before the selection announcement, ED modified the procurement and cancelled components A, B and H, which were significant portions of the solicitation.
• These changes were so material to the scope of work that ED should have been required to cancel the RFP and issue a new one reflecting the revised requirements, or alternatively, it should have amended the RFP and permitted submission of new Phase I proposals.
• ED also materially altered the terms and scope of the solicitation by changing requirements for component D. In Phase I, components E and F included “Solution 3.0 business process operations” and “Solicitation 2.0 business process operations.” Component D included “Solution 2.0 (core processing, related middleware, and rules engine).” On September 24, 2018 ED issued the component D RFP for Phase II which includes substantial loan servicing business operations services, in sharp contrast to the scope set forth in the Phase I solicitation.
• Navient is at a competitive disadvantage by being required to bid based on unduly restrictive requirements that do not represent ED’s needs as they have now become known.

Navient is requesting permanent injunctive relief requiring ED to cancel or amend the solicitation and permit proposals from new offerors for Phase I, as well as reimbursement of bid and proposal costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as damages.

MUNCIE, Ind. — Ontario Systems, a leading provider of enterprise revenue cycle management software to the healthcare, accounts receivable management, and government markets, announced today five of its Artiva RMTM clients placed within the top seven Department of Education (ED) debt collection contractors in a recent release of liquidation rankings.

The performance data, which was published in an article by insideARM, is the first to be released in more than five years. According to the article, insideARM said sources shared that ED was set to begin measuring agencies against each other starting on October 1, 2018. Additionally, ED will begin to rank agencies based on a number of criteria, not just liquidations.

Among Ontario Systems’ ED contractor clients on the list are:

• Action Financial Services
• Central Research
• Coast Professional
• Credit Adjustments

“We are extremely sensitive to the nuances of the Department of Education contract for our business partners,” said Don Siler, Senior Director of Operations at Ontario Systems. “We strive to deliver a version of the Artiva RM software application that meets our ED clients’ needs and helps them successfully service those accounts. We are proud to see our clients atop the liquidation rankings and congratulate them on their success.”

“The Artiva RM product with the Student Loan functionality has been a game changer for us,” said Becky Dillon, CEO of Action Financial Services. “Knowing that Ontario Systems maintains its products to the requirements of the ED, it allows us to stay focused on the operational demands of the ED. I can’t imagine working on this portfolio without Ontario’s Artiva platform.”

[article_ad]

About Ontario Systems

Ontario Systems Ontario Systems is a leading provider of enterprise revenue cycle management software to the healthcare, accounts receivable management, and government markets. Established in 1980 and headquartered in Muncie, Ind., Ontario Systems offers a full portfolio of leading software platforms, including Artiva RMTM, Artiva HCxTM, Contact Savvy®, and RevQ®. Ontario Systems’ industry-leading customers include 5 of the 15 largest hospital networks who actively manage over $40 billion in receivables collectively, as well as 8 of the 10 largest ARM companies and more than a hundred federal, state and municipal government clients in the U.S.

To learn more about Ontario Systems, visit OntarioSystems.com or email info@ontariosystems.com.

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — LiveVox Inc., a leading provider of cloud contact center solutions, announced that LiveVox General Counsel, Mark Mallah, and Strategic Product Director, Paul McGee, will join ARM industry leaders at insideARM’s 2018 Fall CRC Innovation Council Meeting to provide insights into the latest regulatory developments and innovation trends driving collections strategies. At the event, attendees participate in a series of collaborative discussions on various industry hot topics to share different perspectives and approaches on how to drive successful engagement.

On the event, Paul McGee, Strategic Director of Product, LiveVox states, “I am excited to join industry leaders to discuss the latest regulatory developments and technology trends shaping collections strategies for today’s digital consumer. In this era of digital transformation, it is important to stay up-to-date on the latest strategies and innovations driving successful engagement. I look forward to participating in this insightful event hosted by insideARM.”

To learn more about LiveVox, please visit its website.

About the event:

• EVENT: Fall 2018 CRC Innovation Council Meeting
• DATE: November 14th–15th, 2018
• LOCATION: Arlington, VA

About LiveVox, Inc.

LiveVox is a leading provider of enterprise cloud contact center solutions, managing more than 12+ billion interactions a year across a multichannel environment. With over 15 years of pure cloud expertise, we empower contact center leaders to drive effective engagement strategies on the consumer’s channel of choice. Our leading-edge risk mitigation and security capabilities help clients quickly adapt to a changing business environment. With new features released quarterly, LiveVox remains at the forefront of cloud contact center innovation. Supported by over 450 employees and rapidly growing, we are headquartered in San Francisco with offices in Atlanta, Bangalore, and Colombia. To learn more, visit LiveVox.com or email us at Info@LiveVox.com.

PHOENIX, Nov. 14, 2018 — BillingTree, the payment problem solvers, today announced the expanded integration of text based billing and payments within the CareView and Payrazr Platforms, rebranding the offering ‘BillingTree SMS.’ The mobile billing solution now available as part of the BillingTree CareView and Payrazr platforms can also be adopted as a stand-alone service. It enables accounts receivables management agencies, healthcare providers, financial institutions and other billers to communicate directly with consumers via their smartphones and facilitates fast, frictionless payments on the same channel.

BillingTree SMS builds on a previous offering expanding this ultra-low effort channel for consumers to get billed and make payments. Once a consumer account is established, text messages can be sent directly to their mobile device and payment can be authorized easily via two-factor authentication. No card present is required, and no app needs to be installed on the mobile device – upon receiving a text request the customer simply follows the prompts for a payment to be executed. The user immediately receives confirmation with the transaction details. In addition to increasing payment volumes and reducing Days Sales Outstanding (DSOs), billers also realize direct cost savings. The paperless solution reduces money spent on manual mail paper & postage plus time taken to manage.

A 6-month free trial of the BillingTree SMS service is available for current and new clients using BillingTree for merchant services. Terms and Conditions apply, offer expires December 31, 2018. To learn more visit: https://start.mybillingtree.com/acton/media/15831/billingtree-sms—free-trial-offer

“Text based billing and payments have been around for quite some time, with consumer adoption just recently exploding. When it comes to collecting on outstanding balances, consumer convenience is key. Our experience finds 80% of consumers receiving a text-pay notification settle their bill, and 65% pay on the first message,” said Russ Palay, Director of Product at BillingTree. “With seamless integrations now native within CareView and Payrazr, the new BillingTree SMS is the most convenient channel for both the billers and consumers.”

A complimentary webinar and demonstration of BillingTree SMS is scheduled for December 6 at 1:00 pm ET. The session will include a discussion on SMS best practices, compliance and use cases. To register visit: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5480681028789404417

About BillingTree
BillingTree is the leading provider of integrated payments solutions to the Healthcare, ARM, Property Management, B2B, and Financial Services industry verticals. Through its technology-enabled suite of products and services, BillingTree enables organizations to increase efficiency and decrease the costs of payment processing while adhering to compliance regulations. Leveraging more than a decade of market experience, BillingTree is dedicated to growing payments with technology through an integrated omni-channel offering, suite of proprietary products and value-added services, and a company-wide focus on delivering extraordinary customer service.

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — LiveVox Inc., a leading provider of cloud contact center solutions, announced that LiveVox General Counsel, Mark Mallah, will join William Maxson of the Federal Trade Commission, Melissa Bateman Fitzgerald of Gryphon Networks, and Brad Andreozzi of Drinker Biddle, to provide insight into the latest regulatory trends and best practices for mitigating risk in today’s digital environment. The panel takes place Wednesday, November 14th at a half-day event hosted by Drinker Biddle Law Firm in Washington D.C.

The panel will discuss:

• Latest TCPA and Do-Not-Call developments impacting outreach
• Risk considerations when considering new channel engagement strategies
• Best practices for fortifying risk exposure in 2019

On the event, Mark Mallah, General Counsel, LiveVox states, “I am excited to be participating in this educational event hosted by Drinker Biddle. As the regulatory and business environment continue to evolve, it is imperative that businesses stay on top of the latest legal developments and compliance strategies. I look forward to sharing some of LiveVox’s TCPA experiences gathered during the last several years, which I hope will be helpful to attendees.”

To learn more about LiveVox,’s TCPA risk-mitigation solutions and other comprehensive compliance tools, click here.

About the event:

• EVENT: An Ounce of Prevention: Best Practices for Mitigating Risk
• DATE/TIME: Wednesday, Nov. 14th, 2018 at 3:15pm ET
• LOCATION: The TCPA in 2018: There and Back Again, a Drinker Biddle Event
• Registration: HERE.
• PANELISTS:
• William Maxson, Federal Trade Commission
• Melissa Bateman Fitzgerald, Gryphon Networks
• Brad Andreozzi, Drinker Biddle
• Mark Mallah, LiveVox, Inc.

[article_ad]

About LiveVox, Inc.

LiveVox is a leading provider of enterprise cloud contact center solutions, managing more than 9+ billion interactions a year across a multichannel environment. With over 15 years of pure cloud expertise, we empower contact center leaders to drive effective engagement strategies on the consumer’s channel of choice. Our leading-edge risk mitigation and security capabilities help clients quickly adapt to a changing business environment. With new features released quarterly, LiveVox remains at the forefront of cloud contact center innovation. Supported by over 450 employees and rapidly growing, we are headquartered in San Francisco with offices in Atlanta, Bangalore, and Colombia. To learn more, visit LiveVox.com or email us at Info@LiveVox.com.