Archives for December 2020

NEWARK, Del. — For the second consecutive year, SIMM Associates employees participated in a Holiday Food Drive that benefited the local Newark branch of the Food Bank of Delaware. These types of food drives are essential to the local food banks ability to provide food to the thousands of individuals they serve.  

“Our employees continue to amaze me with their generosity and always doing what they can for the local community,” said Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer Jeff Simendinger. “Our employees answered the call and there was no encouragement necessary for our staff to participate. This year’s donations seemed to have more of an impact knowing that there are more people struggling due to the pandemic. I am so very proud of all of our employees!” 

The Food Bank of Delaware is a nonprofit organization dedicated to feeding Delawareans in need. 

About Simm Associates, Inc.

SIMM is a full service nationally licensed ARM company providing collection solutions to the student lending, consumer lending, credit/retail card, healthcare, auto finance, credit union and debt buying industries. SIMM provides best in class deceased care solutions that encompass decedent verification, estate location scrub, proprietary Probate Tracker SM claim filing process and an empathetic survivor recovery solution all performed with brand sensitivity and regulatory compliance in mind. SIMM has passed the US Department of Education’s stringent requirements and currently is a subcontractor for the existing Private Collection Agency contract. Its headquarters is located in Delaware in a 32,000 sq. ft. state of the art call center. SIMM holds the following certifications: PCI Level 1, ISO 27002 and SSAE16 Type II. SIMM services customers throughout the United States including Puerto Rico. 
For more information please contact Jeffrey Simendinger COO, jeffs@simmassociates.com, (302) 283-2802.

Editor’s Note: This article is authored by Joann Needleman, Leslie Bender, and Ann Lemmo of Clark Hill PLC . Joann Needleman and Leslie Bender are members of the iA Legal Advisory Board.

On December 8, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) entered into a Consent Order with RAB Performance Recoveries, LLC (RAB) for engaging in debt collection activity without a license in the states of Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Jersey. RAB’s failure to obtain any proper state licensing in those specific states led the CFPB to issue a fine of over $200,000 as well as a permanent order restraining RAB and its principals from ever engaging in a very broad description of debt collection activities. Both state regulators and the CFPB are responsible for regulating debt collection activities and both have a vital interest in the work of the other. However, in this instance, the CPFB acted alone and found that RAB’s conducted not only violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), but their conduct amounted to a UDAAP violation under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA).  

Over time as more modern forms of technology have been introduced in the business of servicing consumer and commercial accounts for others, the lines distinguishing “debt collection” activities subject to state oversight, the FDCPA (and other laws), and the services businesses offer on behalf of creditors regarding receivables have blurred. State regulators have been very cognizant of these activities and used a variety of supervision and enforcement strategies to ensure an entity’s conduct aligns with states’ licensing requirements. State penalties for the failure to obtain a license can be both civil and criminal in nature.   

[article_ad]

It is notable that the CFPB and state regulators have had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place since May 2013 to coordinate on supervision and enforcement matters regarding these types of action. In this instance, however, the CFPB did not partner with regulators in Rhode Island, New Jersey or Connecticut.   The CFPB’s enforcement action against RAB emphasizes that collecting without a license can also be a violation of the FDCPA because the lack of a license is a false representation or implication that the entity is permitted to conduct debt collection activities in the first place.    

There are other important takeaways that must be considered by entities who provide any services for creditors that involve the collection of money from consumers. First, a title alone does not exempt an entity from licensure; the nature of the services rendered on behalf of the creditor is the qualifier that determines whether the activities fall under a broad interpretation of the phrase “debt collection.” Second, the failure to license can result in significant penalties. In the over ten thousand administrative actions undertaken by state regulators in the past decade for the failure to license, many resulted in a permanent cease and desist, and similar or even remotely-related activity could also be permanently enjoined. 

California and New York will be requiring debt collectors to license in the coming year. Many states have adopted the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) and will continue to handle applications, renewals and other debt collection oversight activities through this system and registry. Meanwhile, in response to the CFPB’s proposed Regulation F, state regulators urged the CFPB to encourage debt collectors, as part of their FDCPA compliance, to list their NMLS or licensing information in written communications such as collection notices sent to consumers — suggesting that the dovetailing of state licensing and FDCPA compliance is important to both state and federal regulators.

ELK GROVE, Calif. — Superlative RM, an account receivables management (ARM) company that provides professional recovery solutions for creditors and debt buyers across the US, is excited to announce the opening of our second office located in Phoenix, AZ. With the opening of this new office, we are responding to the rising demands for our services and taking the next step in our business growth strategy. Through the tremendous potential of our new office, we can easily meet the growing needs of our clients across the ARM industry. 

This expansion marks a significant milestone in the growth of our company. The combination of our new Arizona office with our existing California office positions Superlative RM to continue its rapid growth while finding high-quality staff from two strong locations. Our new office is bringing high-quality collections careers to the Phoenix metropolitan area. The centrally located facility is close to major highways, making it easily accessible for employees who live in the city center and for those who commute.

Unparalleled Location and Space

Our new office is directly adjacent to South Mountain Park and Preserve, America’s largest urban park and wilderness preserve, and the Arizona Grand Resort & Spa, a beautiful luxury resort. With exceptional outdoor spaces just minutes away, our new Phoenix location also boasts remarkable indoor features. Unlike traditional office spaces, our modern, open floor plan is bright, airy, and spacious, providing our team with a welcoming layout that fosters increased engagement and productivity. 

“We are delighted with the growth that has allowed our company to reach this most recent achievement. This secondary call center in Phoenix allows us to continue our diversification and expansion into new markets,” says CEO Jerry Terrill. “Our leadership team has experience in building a positive company culture in which our employees thrive and grow. Now, we’re taking that same philosophy into Phoenix and establishing a strong network of talented professionals who share our passion for delivering high-quality, compassionate collections solutions. As we grow and welcome new people into our team, we remain focused on building a strong foundation that will allow us to build capacity, continue our growth trajectory, and work toward the goal of continued expansion in 2021.” 

Career Opportunities in Phoenix

Superlative RM is a great place to work and we are hiring for our new Phoenix location! We are seeking highly motivated and competitive professionals with excellent communication skills who enjoy a fast-paced work environment with a team atmosphere. For more information, please visit our Indeed page or connect with us on Facebook to hear about our latest news and opportunities. 

About Superlative RM

Founded by a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Superlative RM is an account receivables management company that works for creditors and debt buyers to assist them with recovering past due balances from consumers in all 50 states. We constantly strive to improve by leveraging state-of-the-art technology to optimize our customer service experience and bottom-line performance. We are headquartered in Elk Grove, CA with an additional office in Phoenix, AZ.

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

Facebook + robocalls= instant magic, at least in terms of readership on TCPA blogs. The stakes are HUGE and — as I’m about to explain — the outcome here is actually far from certain. Indeed, this is going to be a real nail biter as we await the outcome. Currently, there is a big battle at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the problematic definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). Below are the ten most important things for you to know about yesterday’s oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in the Facebook case, which looks to clarity the ATDS issue once and for all.

But let’s tee this thing up.

First, the issue: Does the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) apply to all dialers with the capacity to dial automatically or just to pre-recorded voice calls?

Why does it matter? The TCPA is the only federal statute governing calls to cell phones. If the TCPA does not apply to automated dialers then callers are free to blast cell phones without consent. On the other hand, if the TCPA applies to dialers with the capacity to call automatically, then Americans have to have consent for everyone they call using a smartphone.

How is that even possible? The TCPA governs calls made using an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). Because the ATDS definition focuses on the capacity of an ATDS to dial automatically rather than the actual use of the automatic function in making a call. The Supreme Court is put to a difficult choice. It can either narrowly read the ATDS definition to apply only to systems with the “capacity” to dial randomly or sequentially — which will leave American cell phones open to a blitz of calls from so-called “predictive dialers” that do not have that capacity — or it can broadly read the ATDS definition to apply to all dialers that can store from a list of numbers–which the smartphone in our pocket an ATDS subject to the TCPA.

So, why not just apply the TCPA to everyone’s smartphone? The TCPA has a private right of action enabling a called party to sue for $500.00 for each call made without permission. If the Supreme Court applies the TCPA to smartphones, then YOU would be liable for $500.00 every time you dial a wrong number or call someone without EXPRESS consent.

What are the parties’ positions? Facebook — yes, that Facebook — argues that the statute’s ATDS definition plainly applies only to dialers that call randomly. In its view, Congress intended a very narrow ATDS definition because a broad TCPA would have violated the First Amendment. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the purpose of the statute was to protect Americans from unwanted calls so the TCPA should be read broadly in accordance with that goal. In his view, the problematic language in the TCPA regarding “random or sequential number generators” really only applies to a piece of the definition. This argument is strengthened by the fact there is no way to “store” numbers using a random or sequential number generator.

So, who is right? Facebook (if you look at the statute through the lens of 1991). But a lot has changed since then. Most importantly, the First Amendment just doesn’t matter as much today as it used to. Whereas Congress was right that banning all calls to cell phones using an autodialer would have violated the First Amendment in 1991, it doesn’t so much anymore because Freedom Schreedom — we hate robocalls. Facebook also wins if you look at the problem through the lens of who is impacted by a broad TCPA reading. Congress did not intend to convert millions of Americans into TCPA violators-in-waiting (a holding already handed down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in analyzing this exact language). But if the focus is on protecting American’s cell phones from unwanted calls, then Plaintiff plainly has a stronger argument, and his linguistic points also carry significant weight.

How did the Justices respond to the oral argument? 

This was a wide-ranging oral argument, with questions sometimes seemingly coming out of left field. The Justices at times seemed to struggle with both the grammatical arguments being presented, as well as with the new-fangled technology at issue. Everyone seemed out of their depths, including the advocates themselves.

There is a lot to unpackage here. For now, however, here are the top 10 things I took away from the argument:

10. Can the Supreme Court deem a statute obsolete? We may be about to find out.

Over and over again, the various Justices suggested the TCPA was a poor fit for modern technologies. This is a true square-peg/round-hole situation and trying to interpret the TCPA’s obsolete language in a manner that covers modern technology seemed more than the Justices cared to do.

At one point, Justice Thomas rather directly suggested that the statute might be obsolete and the Court should not waste resources interpreting it out of “futility.” Later, Justice Grousch picked up this line of questioning, pointing out that the Supremes had never claimed the authority to deem a statute obsolete, but the TCPA certainly seemed to be a candidate.

What does it mean to have a statute deemed obsolete? Well since no court has ever directly held a statute obsolete, no one really knows. Presumably, however, it would render the statute unenforceable, at least in some contexts. Perhaps this is a corollary doctrine to the vid for vagueness doctrine under the due process clause. It will be interesting to see if the Court does anything with it.

9. What is a robocall anyway? The Justices spar with advocates on a word that isn’t even in the statute.

It was interesting to watch the Justices and advocates discuss the meaning of the word “robocall.” It isn’t even in the statute.

So why does it matter?

Well, in a bit of judicial grandstanding, Justice Kavanaugh’s plurality opinion in AAPC pronounced that the Supreme Court was keeping America safe from robocalls in upholding the TCPA from a massive First Amendment challenge in that case. Plaintiff’s counsel handed that right back to the Supreme Court and reminded it that, just a few months ago, it pledged to keep Americans safe from robocalls, which — in plaintiff’s view — includes automated calls.

The Justices — particularly Kavanaugh and Roberts who joined the plurality in AAPC — did not seem pleased with that characterization and tried to position robocalls to include only pre-recorded calls. Quite the retreat.

[article_ad]

8. The rules of statutory construction may not be as well-settled as we thought.

Believe it or not, lawyers like rules. We’re all a bunch of little rule followers. The magic is in applying the rules in the way that best helps your client.

Listening to the Supreme Court argument yesterday, I felt this sinking feeling in my stomach like maybe the rules don’t matter that much after all. Specifically, the rules of statutory construction. Over and over and over again, we learned in law school — and in day to day practice — that Courts are supposed to apply certain very specific (sometimes arcane) rules to discern the meaning intended by Congress.

These rules are critical (I thought) because the alternative, as Facebook’s counsel boldly pronounced at oral argument, is “madness.” Leaving courts free to re-write statutes using whatever criteria they think best.

Over and over, however, it was suggested that these rules might not apply monolithically after all. Chief Justice Roberts asked right out of the gate:  “[Your opponent argues we should] look to the sense of the passage and not the syntax…. as a general matter he’s right isn’t he?”

7. Privacy is a double-edged sword.

One of the more interesting components of Facebook’s argument was a bit of legal jujitsu.

Duguid counsel pressed that American privacy can only be protected by a broad reading of the TCPA. Rather than take that issue on or dispute it, Facebook did exactly the opposite. It argued that Congress didn’t really care about privacy in enacting the TCPA to begin with.

In Facebook’s reasoning, if Congress wanted to defend American’s privacy interest it would have protected “the homefront.” (Yes the term “homefront” was actually used.) But the TCPA does not apply to ATDS calls to residential landlines. It never has. So if privacy mattered, then Congress inexplicably left an “elephant hole” next to a “mouse hole.”

This was a pretty bice tactic that took a lot of the sting away from Plaintiff’s “privacy” argument, but it is also a bit of sleight of hand. Just because Congress didn’t protect residential privacy doesn’t mean it didn’t intend to protect the privacy of cellular phone subscribers. When you factor in the fact that residential phone users are generally said to have MORE privacy protections than cellular subscribers, it does start to become a bit strange that Congress would intentionally legislate backward. (Again the answer likely lies in First Amendment law, but that doesn’t seem to matter.) Speaking of which…

6. The First Amendment is dead in this country.

We just witnessed something so remarkable and sad and insane (at least to me.)

An entire oral argument before the Supreme Court in which expanding a federal statute to impose criminal and civil penalties on users of smartphone technologies is being seriously considered — and ZERO mention of the First Amendment implications if such a ruling were made.

Zero.

ZERO!

I mean, how in the world does one consider expanding a federal statute like the TCPA, which plainly regulates speech, to cover every smartphone in the nation (and to therefore regulate the speech of every American) without at least discussing the First Amendment prohibition on federal statutes that regulate speech?

The only time the First Amendment was even mentioned was when Facebook’s counsel explain to the Court that the reason Congress didn’t originally draft a broad TCPA was due to First Amendment concerns. And then the issue was dropped. It was never unpackaged or discussed.

Just dropped like a dead sardine.

5. The TCPA is likely a pawn in a larger game (again). This time, the battle is over textualism.

The TCPA, it seems, is often a pawn in a larger game.

As one of the most often sued under statutes in the federal arsenal, courts get to see a lot of TCPA cases. And they use the opportunity to position precedent for larger battles. After all, does the Supreme Court really care about who is getting robocalls given the state of America in 2020?

One of the big meta-battles in legal circles is how and whether courts may “re-write” statutes to accomplish the supposed purpose intended by Congress, versus needed to stay very close to the actual language. “Textualism” as it is called, is particularly important in Constitutional review. “Textualists” tend to read the Constitution narrowly to give Americans less freedom (and the government more power to regulate). This is important, say, if you want to overturn case law permitting stuff that you think ought to be illegal.

When you hear that the Supreme Court now skews “conservative” what that mostly means is that this Supreme Court is made up of “textualists” who seek, above all else, to faithfully interpret the text of statutes and the constitution in the way intended by the drafters of the documents at the time they were drafted. There is a fundamental philosophical divide between textualists and other judges who believe that reading law in light of current circumstances is just fine.

The battle between the “at the timers” (textualists) and the “now matters” justices was on plain display in the questioning. Over and over questions about what Congress was intending in 1991 were asked. Thus, while it may seem weird in a case involving a high-technology company like Facebook, much of the discussion centered around obsolete technologies like call forwarding and auto re-dial: functionalities that were available to Congress at the time of drafting that might inform a reader today about what Congress meant back then.

It will be fascinating to see how this textualist battle plays out (arguably, it could go both ways), but there is one thing for sure: the conservative wing of the court is not going to create a precedent in Facebook that might damage its approach in other “bigger” matters of interpretation.

4. This case may be more about “capacity” than anything else.

One of the biggest moments came late in the argument when Gorsuch had Plaintiff’s counsel Garner on the ropes over the TCPA’s focus on “capacity” in the ATDS definition.

The definition, as Gorsuch urged, does not require the actual use of automated functionality. So how can the Court avoid criminalizing ordinary phone calls? Garner tried to push back but had nowhere to go and advocated for an application of the statute to only automated calls. But that is not what the statutory definition says and Gorsuch pummeled him for trying to change the language.

If the Supremes are really caught up on “capacity” — i.e., that the use of automated functionalities doesn’t matter — then that may be checkmate for Facebook. To use Garner’s own example, it would be equivalent to criminalizing the ordinary use of ropes and kitchen knives, because they are implements with the capacity to serve as deadly weapons.

Stated simply: the ruling, in this case, might begin with the Supreme Court focusing on the statute’s use of the word “capacity” and backing into a functionality definition from there.

3.  Human intervention is in the eye of the beholder, which also helps Facebook.

Closely related to the “capacity” issue is the doctrine of human intervention. Plaintiff’s argument against the application of the TCPA to smartphones is that the statute does not apply to dialers that operate with human intervention.

As already explained, Gorsuch tore Garner apart on this point because that’s not what the statute says.

But an even more problematic question is how do you define human intervention? Justice after justice peppered Garner on this point, including a nice zinger by new Justice Barret on the use of an auto-reply feature. There was simply no good answer available.

In the end, the ephemeral boundaries of “human intervention” may be the Plaintiff’s bar’s undoing.

2. There may be a middle ground after all.

One of the most exciting parts of the Facebook appeal for legal nerds like me is that there seemed to be no middle ground: the Supreme Court has to adopt one of two imperfect choices. Either it has to obliterate the TCPA’s ATDS definition (probably the right thing to do even though the consequences aren’t the best), or it has to re-write the statute completely (not what courts are supposed to do and, as explained above, not what this court wants to do at all.) There doesn’t seem to be any other path forward. 

Leave it to Justice Thomas to offer a middle ground.

What if the TCPA just doesn’t apply to texts? The “calls” at issue in Facebook weren’t “calls” at all. They were text messages. The TCPA doesn’t mention text messages. Indeed, the first-ever text message wasn’t sent until the year after the TCPA was passed.

While the entire TCPAWorld might groan at the idea of going all the way to the Supreme Court on the critical ATDS definition and walking away empty-handed, that might be precisely what happens. If SCOTUS rules that texts are not calls or, worse yet, punts on the issue and asks the Ninth Circuit to reconsider it, we may have come a long way for a small ruling.

Then again, text message platforms will be happy.

1. This thing is a closer call than many expected.

Coming into the oral argument, I gave Facebook an 85% chance of success. I think Facebook still has the better chance here mostly because of the textualist bend of the court. Listening in yesterday, I think we’re closer to 60-40.

Garner was the better of the advocates in the courtroom yesterday — sorry, not sorry — and he performed admirably in the face of tough questions. In the end, I do not think it will be enough to carry the plaintiff’s bar across the finish line but it was a commendable effort and one that made this thing a lot closer than it looked on paper.

[Note: This article has been updated to include additional information about the Post-Examination Survey Program]

In its recently published Annual Report to the Director, the CFPB’s Ombudsman Office describes a beta program launched this year to survey companies post-CFPB examination.

Starting on page 14 of the report, the CFPB’s Ombudsman, Wendy Kamenshine, lays out the process the Bureau went through in conceiving, developing, and beta-testing these post-examination surveys.

[There’s a chance you may not be entirely clear as to what an ombudsman does. An ombudsman is an impartial, disinterested party that reviews a company’s practices from all sides, with the goal of providing information and insight to the company about the company’s behavior and perception in the marketplace. An ombudsman’s role is complicated: they are the employee of the company, but they do not necessarily represent the company. Think of them as an outside advocate.]

According to the CFPB’s ombudsman, the goal of this post-examination survey is to

[E]stablish a survey tool to be used solely by the Ombudsman to confidentially gather feedback from supervised entities in accordance with our professional ombudsman standards of practice. […] The Ombudsman will review survey outcomes, using techniques that not only inform our work but also allow us to provide unattributed feedback and any recommendations to the CFPB from our unique perspective. At the same time, the Ombudsman survey tool will not collect, analyze, or report on examiner performance or the specific details of any given supervisory examination.

The Ombudsman’s office identified the following examination practice areas to focus on in its post-examination survey. From page 16:

• Supervision materials and resources – Includes topics such as information availability, functionality, and content for review by entity representatives who will engage with any part of the examination.
• Interpersonal communications – Includes communications between entity representatives and anyone at the CFPB before, during, or after an examination, using any medium or format.
• End of the examination – Includes topics such as timing, knowledge of outcomes or resolutions, clarity in expectations of closure, and awareness of the appeals process.

Companies for the beta test were drawn from CFPB supervised entities across the spectrum. To protect the privacy of those companies, and to ensure answers were as candid and honest as possible, only the CFPB Office of the Ombudsman knows the identites of the companies chosen. (Were you one of the companies? Do you want to tell us what the post-examination survey was like for your company? We’d LOVE to hear it: editor@insidearm.com. We, too, guarantee your privacy.)

Members of the Office of Ombudsman asked three questions in this beta survey:

1) What worked?

2) What didn’t?

3) What would you change?

What will be done with the information those companies in the beta process provided?

Great question. In the beta version, the Ombudsman reported, “We plan to provide the CFPB with a summary of the beta test survey participants’ unattributed feedback and recommendations, for the agency’s consideration.”

It seems likely the Ombudsman’s Office will continue this method of data-sharing with the Bureau when this post-examination survey is rolled out in its final version.

Are these post-examination surveys going to be a regular thing?

From a blog post written by Wendy Kamenshine: “Following completion of our annual report, we concluded our beta test evaluation and determined that our office will conduct a post-examination survey of supervised entities as a new initiative going forward.” So yes. These are a new initiative for the CFPB.

Our friends at TCPAWorld are providing “live” coverage of arguments in front of the Supreme Court regarding just what, finally, after all these years, were we ever so young, an ATDS is.

Follow this page (and refresh frequently) for updates: Realtime, Unfiltered Coverage of The SCOTUS ATDS Argument

insideARM will provide a full write-up of the arguments, and analysis, after the session.

It’s hard to believe we’re one day away from our 3rd annual Women in Consumer and Commercial Finance conference. 

This event started as a pilot three years ago when we hosted just over 100 women in Baltimore. We were overjoyed that those women took a leap of faith on our event. Many more have done the same since. This year, we asked women to take a different kind of leap of faith – on a virtual experience. And as we wrap up the final details of our first-ever virtual women’s conference, I can’t help but be overwhelmed by the 600 women, from all stages of their career, who are gearing up to meet new people, learn and have some fun. 

[article_ad]

Although this year’s event is virtual, the mission now is the same as it’s always been: to create an environment where women can build meaningful relationships, win new allies, and feel a sense of community, support, and camaraderie. We want every woman to walk away feeling inspired, renewed, and equipped with the knowledge they need to embark on another year. 

Although we are disappointed we could not convene in Savannah as originally planned, we’re really excited about the digital format. Thanks to the reduced price and the accessibility of the conference to anyone who is interested, many women are attending who may not have been able to attend otherwise. 

We’re seeing some companies send really big groups of attendees, too. (Scroll down to see which companies are sending big teams.) When entire teams attend, those attendees can see that their companies really do care about professional development. Those teams of attendees will go through this experience together and bring that sense of connection and camaraderie right back to the office. That’s a tremendous benefit.

Here’s what a few of those companies had to say about sending teams of attendees:

“Investing in the growth and development of our female leaders will only help build a strong foundation for our future success.”

– Mike Ferris, SVP, Loss Control and Recovery, Small Business Lending, Wells Fargo

“This is our third year of participation in the WCCF conference and we look forward to seeing this event grow and gain the participation of the multitude of brilliant women in our industry.”

– Chris Repholz, Chief Customer Officer, MRS BPO

Who knows, maybe we’ll have a hybrid event next year so that these benefits can be an option going forward. Stay tuned for more. In the meantime, a big thank you to all the companies sending attendees this year. A special thank you to the companies who sent entire teams. 

By the way, we start tomorrow at 11:45 AM EST. It’s not too late to join us. Thanks,

-Amy Perkins, Chair

Women in Consumer & Commercial Finance

Companies sending large teams of attendees to WCCF this year include:

On Friday, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA-43)—the Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee—sent a letter to President-elect Biden urging him and Vice President-elect Harris to rescind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s recently-released final debt collection rule and to take several other actions.

The 45-page-long letter covers a wide range of topics. Under the topic of consumer protection during the COVID-19 pandemic, the letter states that Biden should fire Director Kathy Kraninger and put in place a Bureau leadership that would “aggressively protect consumers.” Specifically related to debt collection, the letter states:

• The CFPB should rescind a recent rule that would allow debt collectors to harass consumers over email or text, and instead bolster consumer protections against abusive debt collection practices.
• Issue a Presidential executive order directing the Treasury and other agencies to immediately suspend the collection of debts owed by consumers to the federal government until after the pandemic ends.

The letter also urges Biden to take a strong stance toward promoting diversity and inclusion in the financial services industry as well as in the industry’s regulators. In support of this, the letter suggests that the new administration:

Require disclosure of public companies and regulated entities of their boards’ diversity, including by approving proposals by national exchanges to change their listing standards to require such disclosure, as well as setting minimum board diversity levels.

[article_ad]

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. –Chartwell is pleased to announce that Spring Oaks Capital, LLC (“Spring Oaks” or the “Company”) has received a substantial structured capital investment, accelerating the Company’s establishment as the premier, technology-enabled consumer debt investment and collections platform in the industry.

[article_ad]

The substantial private investment, coupled with a $150 million senior secured revolving credit facility provided solely by Ares Global Management, LLC (“Ares”), will support the Company’s opportunistic portfolio acquisition strategy along with the continued development of industry leading technology tools. Further supporting the Company’s growth, Ares has included an incremental $100 million of capital, via an accordion, available for additional capital deployment. In partnering with the leading provider of credit solutions to the consumer finance sector, Spring Oaks is positioned to execute upon a robust pipeline of investment opportunities. Simultaneous with closing, Spring Oaks financed a meaningful investment in selected consumer finance assets, with continued acquisitions scheduled during the remainder of 2020.

Chartwell served as Spring Oaks’ exclusive financial advisor, providing strategic counsel to the Company as it evaluated its capital structure alternatives in pursuit of sustainable growth. The junior structured capital infusion will allow Spring Oaks to build a platform that empowers consumers on their journey to resolve the burden of financial debt through machine learning, behavioral science, and deep industry expertise. The Company now has the necessary capital to rapidly scale its portfolio acquisition platform, leveraging unmatched compliance procedures, best-in-class technology platform, and a team of long-standing industry executives. The investor’s belief in the Company is evidenced by the substantial capital commitment, through both the initial investment and significant monetary commitment in the future.

Spring Oaks Capital, LLC is an innovative and technology-focused consumer debt purchasing and collections platform spearheaded by some of the most credible and experienced executives in the industry. The Company leverages data-driven analytics, AI, and machine learning integration to enhance underwriting, purchasing, and collections, supported by industry-leading cloud-based tools. The Company maintains an unmatched compliance focus, ethically collecting portfolios with a team-based approach.

Chartwell Value Add

“Spring Oaks is extremely pleased with this investment outcome as it positions us for significant growth as we build the premier debt buyer in the industry. Our long-standing partnership with Chartwell has been instrumental in the early development of the Company, and we are grateful for their leadership of our capital raising process. We look forward to many years of continued partnership with their team.”

— Marcelo Aita, Executive Chairman, Spring Oaks Capital, LLC

“This is a significant milestone for Spring Oaks as we continue to build our leading portfolio acquisition platform and deepen our relationships with high quality financial institutions seeking a well-capitalized, technology-enabled partner to transition customer relationships. The Ares credit facility, along with our structured capital investor, positions us to be the buyer of choice for sellers seeking a long-term partner, ranging from leading-edge financial technology lenders to global banking institutions.”

— Tim Stapleford, President & CEO, Spring Oaks Capital, LLC

About Spring Oaks Capital

Spring Oaks Capital is a national financial technology company, focused on the acquisition of non-performing credit portfolios. The Company subscribes to an employee and consumer-centric operating philosophy that creates high-value jobs, a significant performance lift and highest standards of compliance. Spring Oaks’ business strategy is rooted in innovative data-driven technology to maximize collection results and a contact platform that offers multi-channel options to meet each consumer’s communication preference. Spring Oaks has the management vision and experience to nurture a culture and DNA that is unique in the space. To learn more about Spring Oaks, please visit www.springoakscapital.com.

“The Spring Oaks team possesses unmatched experience and we are excited to be a trusted advisor to the Company. With a fulsome understanding of the Company’s objectives and a review of the capital alternatives available to support the Company’s initial growth, the preferred capital structure exceeded the initial investment expectations, with an ability to facilitate significant future investment over time. The selected institutional private investor also provides complimentary benefits to Spring Oaks’ technology strategy. We are excited to support Spring Oaks’ continued growth. Further, Spring Oaks is well-positioned for sustainable growth through its partnership with Ares, one of the world’s premier institutional credit platforms. We are incredibly excited to witness the Spring Oaks growth story over the next several years, and continue to build on our partnership with Marcelo Aita, Tim Stapleford, and the entire Spring Oaks team.”

— Will Bloom, Managing Director & Head of Capital Markets, Chartwell Financial Advisory

About Chartwell Financial Advisory

Chartwell provides comprehensive financial advisory solutions and investment banking services to the middle market. With substantial corporate finance and capital markets expertise, the Chartwell team works with clients and their advisors to deliver independent, solutions-based advisory services that are unbiased to outcome, free from conflicts, and focused on optimizing client objectives. For additional information on this transaction, please contact Will Bloom, Managing Director and Head of Chartwell’s Capital Markets team. To learn more about Chartwell’s overall corporate finance capabilities, please contact Greg Fresh, Managing Director and Head of Chartwell’s Corporate Finance group.

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — The receivable management industry, comprised of companies who provide a wide array of fundamental financial services centered around the purchase, finance and/or collection on consumer and commercial related accounts receivables continues to be the cornerstone in the credit ecosystem, and a major influence behind credit availability to consumers, both in the U.S., Canada and abroad. The receivables management industry ensures that the overwhelming majority of U.S. consumers (and small businesses) who pay their respective outstanding debt(s) on time have access to credit at affordable interest rates.

Like every other industry, the receivables management industry is also undergoing wide-scale digitization of core operations, catalyzed by a fundamental shift in remote working (work from home operations), including collectors, during the COVID-19 pandemic.  This paradigm shift to remote workforces has forced companies to employ next-generation technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to help maximize the accuracy & effectiveness of compliance and quality assurance oversight, while also maximizing collection performance on client assets.  

Prodigal, a software company whose technology is pioneering collection intelligence, is excited to announce its partnership with the FFAM360 Alliance® of Companies (collectively “FFAM360”).  FFAM360 is a world-class organization that provides financial solutions that address all phases of the credit and revenue lifecycle. Recognized as an industry-leader, FFAM360 delivers comprehensive business process outsourcing, accounts receivable management, healthcare revenue cycle management, and receivables purchasing & specialty finance through their vast network of affiliated companies.

“We are very excited about the early-stage results of our engagement with Prodigal” said Paul Allen, Chief Operating Officer, at FFAM360.  Mr. Allen further stated, “The Prodigal technology has enabled us to quickly identify important compliance metrics, as well as drill down into operational strategy & productivity KPI’s, that when in combination, has significantly improved our feedback loop and agent training modules across our 3rd-party agency network.  Further, FFAM360 can now track and score every call across a number of parameters and compliance aspects within about 10% of the time it used to take, thus improving our productivity ten-fold.”

Prodigal helps automate auditing workflows for both captive collection operations and the network of third-party agencies across all stages of debt recovery.

Single, integrated view across the network of agencies: Monitoring the performance and compliance of multiple agencies is a daunting task. Prodigal provides valuable AI-powered tools to FFAM360 that help track the performance of internal collectors and various external agencies through a unified dashboard. Any compliance violation across the network is immediately flagged.

Benchmarking captive operations vs 3rd party network: Prodigal enables FFAM360 to effectively monitor and benchmark the performance of its captive collection operations versus the third-party agencies that it outsources. The overall performance of the portfolio held by FFAM360 has improved as benchmarking enables FFAM360 to improve agent training modules as well as share actionable insights with third-party collectors.

Standardized reporting & analytics: Prodigal facilitates FFAM360 to customize analytics dashboards and streamline reporting workflows through web UI. Such standardization further helps FFAM360 monitor agent performance and compliance violations across captive and network operations more effectively.

Faster quality review: Prodigal’s industry-leading compliance suite powered by advanced speech AI allows FFAM360 to monitor 100% of calls for compliance and assure quality across its vast operations in a highly automated fashion. The Quality management team at FFAM360 is now able to review calls 10x faster.  

In our personal lives, AI is everywhere, simply ask Alexa or Siri what’s on your calendar today. Debt buyers are increasingly looking for ways to leverage machine learning to increase overall recovery revenue. Enhanced agent productivity and reduced compliance cost can significantly boost profit margins.   

Forward-looking debt buyers are increasingly realizing the boundless potential AI harbors for debt collection processes. Speech AI is revolutionizing the debt collection industry with each passing day. Efficient and compliant communication with borrowers combined with automated workflows can meaningfully improve the profit margins for debt buyers.

AI-powered solutions can bring customers with a high propensity and ability to pay, back into the mainstream fold before they are lost while transforming how collections are handled, ultimately helping financial institutions to ensure collection compliance and create exponential value simultaneously.