BURLINGTON, Mass. — Ontario Systems, a
leading provider of enterprise workflow automation software built to accelerate
revenue recovery and remove friction from the payments process for clients in
the accounts receivable management (ARM), healthcare, and government markets
announced the company will change its name to Finvi (pronounced fin · vī) and update
its corporate logo.

“We believe that our name change reflects a
unique opportunity to build brand awareness around our solutions and
competitive offerings,” said Tim O’Brien, CEO of Finvi. “Since my arrival, we
have integrated a number of acquisitions, refreshed our product roadmaps to
better represent the voice of our customer, and worked diligently to become a
product-led organization. Throughout that journey, the Finvi brand emerged as a
true symbol of those efforts and we’re ecstatic to see it come to life in the
market.”

For over 40 years, Ontario, now Finvi, has been the receivables
industry’s most dependable collection platform. Executing upon a series of
strategic growth opportunities throughout 2020 and 2021, it most recently
expanded its substantial collections workflow footprint into the $2.5B+
first-party collections market segment – making it one of the few technology
companies to serve both first- and third-party collections at scale across
multiple verticals. “Across markets, organizations with outstanding receivables of
all types are looking for a partner that anticipates their needs and drives
business results,” continued O’Brien. “We look forward to continuing to serve
these markets with the same level of dedication and diligence that we always
have, but with a refreshed vision under the Finvi banner.” With an eye towards driving increased payments for its
customers, Finvi prioritizes a human-centric platform that balances consumer
preferences and business needs throughout the repayment journey. Moving
forward, Finvi will continue to deploy intelligent approaches that expand upon
the value brought to customers with cutting-edge solutions grounded in deep
industry expertise.

About Finvi

Formerly Ontario Systems, Finvi is
a premier provider of enterprise technologies that streamline and accelerate
revenue recovery for clients across healthcare, government, accounts receivable
management, and financial institutions. Through process automation and modern,
compliance-minded communication and payment tools, Finvi allows its client
partners to generate more revenue at reduced cost and fulfill their stated
business outcomes by effectively engaging those who pay.

On October 1, 2021, the CFPB published Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to the Limited Content Message and Call Frequency Presumptions included in Regulation F (Reg F). These FAQs are a Compliance Aid designed to help collection agencies comply with Reg F, which goes into effect on 11/30/21. Per the CFPB’s January 27, 2020, Policy Statement, “Compliance Aids are not rules. Rather, they present the requirements of existing rules and statutes in a manner that is useful for compliance professionals, other industry stakeholders and the public.”

The FAQ topics are listed below. In response to each of these questions, the CFPB provided guidance on the issue and the appropriate cite to Reg F.

Limited-Content Messages

1. What is a “limited-content message”? 

2. Is a limited-content message a
“communication”? 

3. Is a voicemail a limited-content message if
it contains information that is required by state law but that is not required
or optional content under the Rule?

4. If a call drops or is otherwise interrupted
while a debt collector is leaving a limited-content message, is the voicemail
still a limited-content message? 

5. Can a debt collector use a pre-recorded
voicemail message to deliver a limited-content message?

6. Are Zortman voicemails considered
limited-content messages?

7. Does the Debt Collection Rule prohibit a
debt collector from leaving a Zortman voicemail? 

8. Is a debt collector required to use their
legal or registered Doing Business As (DBA) name in a limited-content message?

9. If the recipient of a limited-content
message researches the business name and identifies the caller as a debt
collector, does that mean the voicemail is no longer a limited-content message?

Telephone Call Frequency

1. Does the Debt Collection Rule limit the
frequency of telephone calls a debt collector can place, or telephone
conversations a debt collector may have, about a debt?

Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions

1. What are the presumptions related to
telephone call frequency? 

2. Do incoming telephone calls from a consumer
to a debt collector about a debt count for purposes of the “call frequency
prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency?

3. Does the prohibition against repeated or
continuous telephone calls or conversations apply to other media types, such as
electronic messages that may be received on a mobile phone?

4. How do the presumptions related to
telephone call frequency apply if a consumer has multiple telephone numbers? 

5. If a debt collector learns that a telephone
number the debt collector previously called is not associated with the
consumer, do those calls count toward the presumptions related to telephone
call frequency for the consumer? 

6. How does a telephone conversation about multiple
debts count for purposes of the “conversation frequency prong” of the
presumptions related to telephone call frequency?

7. If a debt collector calls a consumer to
discuss multiple debts the consumer owes or allegedly owes but does not reach
the consumer or leave any voicemails, how do those telephone calls count for
purposes of the “call frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone
call frequency?

8. What if a debt collector operates in a state that has
different rules regarding how many times a debt collector may call or have a
conversation with a consumer about a debt?

Telephone Call Frequency: Excluded Calls

1. Are certain telephone calls excluded from
the presumptions related to telephone call frequency?

2. How long is a consumer’s direct prior
consent valid? 

3. What are some examples of calls that are
connected to a dialed number and calls that are not connected to a dialed
number?

4. Is a limited-content message excluded from
the presumptions related to telephone call frequency? 

5. Is a debt collector’s return telephone call responding to a
consumer’s inquiry about settling the consumer’s debt excluded from the
presumptions related to telephone call frequency?

Telephone Call Frequency: Rebutting the
Presumptions

1. What factors rebut the presumption of
compliance with the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls
or conversations? 

2. What factors rebut the presumption of a
violation of the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or
conversations? 

3. If a debt collector places a payment
reminder call that exceeds the telephone call frequencies, can the debt
collector rebut the presumption of a violation?

4. If a debt collector places a telephone call in response to a
consumer inquiry about resolving the consumer’s debt, and the debt collector’s
call exceeds the telephone call frequencies, can the debt collector rebut the
presumption of a violation?

insideARM perspective

It’s nice to see the CFPB attempt to clarify Reg F; however, these FAQs refer to only two sections of the regulation. Among other areas of grey, there remains much uncertainty regarding the Model Notice, electronic communications, opt-outs, and conflicts with state law. Hopefully, now that the CFPB has its Director situation settled, it will issue FAQs to clarify other parts of Reg F. 

Many in the
collections industry consider omnichannel to be the digital strategy of the
future, but what does that actually mean? What does a true omnichannel strategy look
like? How does that differ from a multichannel solution? And what can or should
you be doing to make sure you’re headed towards a true omnichannel solution?

During a recent session
at iA Strategy & Tech, Mike Cassidy of M&G Solutions summed it up
nicely: the word omnichannel “is often used and even more often misused.”

Here are three questions
you should be asking if you want to understand what it means to pursue a true
omnichannel strategy for receivables, why a digital collections strategy like
this matters, and what it means to be ready for implementation.

Want
more collections strategy insight like this? Sign up for the iA Strategy & Tech Newsletter.

1. We call, email, text,
and send letters. Don’t we already have an omnichannel solution?

You may think you are
operating with an omnichannel solution because you have many channels available
for customers to contact you, or for you to contact them. You have outbound and
inbound calling, letters, a super-functional
website/customer portal, chat, and maybe even SMS and email outreach. You’re feeling good
about the number of channel choices you’ve given customers to contact you, and
maybe that’s enough?

Well…

What I described above
is a multichannel
solution, not an omnichannel one.
And, don’t get me wrong, a multichannel solution is fine. The digital
expansion in the last few years happened really quickly, and taking the steps
to allow contact outside of letters and calls is a huge deal. But soon (very soon), it
won’t be enough. An omnichannel solution, by definition, requires all of your
tools to exist in one environment. All of the channels you have available for
customers are talking to each other, and reacting to the same data.

Let’s play out a
scenario with a true omnichannel solution.

Customer Jane Smith
calls in after receiving a letter from you. She negotiates a payment plan with
one of your live agents, but doesn’t feel comfortable providing her payment
information over the phone, so your agent offers to send her a link to your
payment portal via text message. She agrees, and receives the text immediately.
She can then access your portal, where the arrangement she negotiated is
prominently available for her to select, and then enter her payment
information. Then, she receives an email with the details of her arrangement,
as well as confirmation of her payment.

In this scenario, the
customer had to do minimal work to resolve her account and all of the actions
were triggered by other actions on the account, which is made possible by your
communication channels living in the same environment.

2. Is our data ready?

A true omnichannel
solution is driven by data, and “there’s so much risk and inefficiency
introduced into the system because of bad data, and because the systems are not
talking to each other,” says Jake Cahan, CEO of Debtsy. So, before you start
vetting new vendors or building new applications, you need to make sure your
data is ready. Ask questions like:

• Where are we storing data? 
  
• Who/what applications can access that data? 
  
• Do we use anything other than the “source of truth” to drive actions on accounts? IE are you using data copies in certain applications?
  
• Are we capturing all of the relevant data?

All of the tech you
choose to use needs to receive data from the same source. Since the customer
expectation is an immediate reaction from your technologies, it will be
difficult to achieve a truly omnichannel solution using traditional batch
processing, so you will have to explore other options, like APIs or webhooks.
Of course, both of those options come with data security risks to consider.
According to Drew Marston of Resurgent, it’s extremely important to review the
data you are sending to make sure it’s the minimum data required to get the job
done. (For more about data, check out The 4 Most Common Mistakes Plaguing Data Science and AI for Debt
Collection)

3. Do we have the right
personnel?

Implementing an omnichannel
solution is different from onboarding a new tech vendor (which is, itself,
challenging). Envision a wheel; each vendor partner is a spoke. But, the hub of
the wheel is internal and will likely require some level of development, as
well as project management and business analytics. If your company isn’t
already well-versed in the importance of project
management, this is a good time to
jump on the bandwagon. Similarly, if your organization hasn’t traditionally
invested in IT and IT adjacent roles, it might be time to consider a shift in
that mentality. A successful omnichannel solution doesn’t merely rely on good
technology and good data, it also relies on subject matter experts and having
the right individuals in the right roles to advance the goals of your
organization.

For more on getting the
right personnel, making sure your data is ready, and many other steps you need
to get right for a successful new digital technology implementation, check
out “The Top 10 Blind Spots in
Digital Collections (and How to Avoid Them).”

—-

Erin Kerr is
the Director of Content at insideARM and the chair of iA Strategy & Tech – a digital resource for collections strategy executives. She is a
seasoned receivables management professional, with recent experience in digital
strategy and a passion for crafting digital solutions for a better customer
experience

On September 29, 2021, the CFPB issued a press release regarding its fifth biennial report to Congress regarding the consumer credit card market. The report found that the market’s growth over the last few years reversed course in 2020.

The report reviews the market for potential consumer harm and presents the
latest research on consumer card use, cost, and availability. From a 2019 peak
of $926 billion, credit card debt fell to $811 billion by the second quarter of
2020, the largest six-month decline on record, before reaching $825 billion by
the end of the year.

“While
public and private programs helped consumers bring down their credit card debt
during the pandemic, we at the CFPB will be watching to make sure families and
individuals still struggling [to] get the assistance they need,” said Dave Uejio*,
the Acting CFPB Director. “Across the credit card market, consumers sought and
used less credit, paid down debt, and dropped late payment rates to historic
lows.  As pandemic relief efforts end, the CFPB will be using all our tools
to support an equitable recovery.” (* Editor’s note: On Thursday, September 30, 2021, the Senate confirmed Rohit Chopra as the new Director of the CFPB.)

Since
the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, and pursuant to the Credit Card
Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, the CFPB has
submitted a report to Congress every two years on the state of the consumer
credit card market. The report released today highlights several indicators
related to consumer credit card activity during the pandemic, including:

• More than 25 million consumer credit card accounts representing approximately $68 billion in outstanding credit card debt entered relief programs in 2020, figures vastly higher than in prior years;

• The share of accounts with a revolving balance declined in 2020, more consumers paid down their card debt in 2020, and existing cardholders paid off the highest share of their credit card debt in recent years;

• Total credit line across all consumer credit cards fell slightly in 2020 from a post-Great Recession high of over $4.5 trillion in 2019 but remained above 2018 levels;

• Application volume for credit cards decreased sharply in 2020 from its peak level in 2019, with approval rates also falling but not as markedly;

• Late payment and default rates have fallen to historic lows, most notably for consumers with below-prime scores;

• Consumers with below prime scores saw the greatest constriction in available credit card line, even as utilization of that line fell;

• Digital engagement—whether reflected in enrollment in online portals, enrollment in mobile apps, opt-in rates to e-statements over paper equivalents, or electronic payment of credit card bills—is growing consistently across all age groups and nearly every platform type; and

• Credit card issuers continued to make fewer debt collection phone calls for delinquent credit card accounts while increasing the use of emails in collection.

During
the pandemic, many cardholders received direct federal assistance, enhanced
unemployment benefits, and payment and interest suspension of federally held
student loans. Buttressing those public efforts, credit card issuers also
provided relief to cardholders through payment deferrals and fee waivers. The
report notes the continued importance of issuers improving customer service and
system reliability related to those relief programs and ensuring that their
systems operate in full compliance with applicable law, even as the market
continues to change with evolving economic conditions as well as with
innovation in the card market and in competing product markets.

The CFPB indicated that the report reflects the CFPB’s ongoing work to ensure the
adequacy of consumer protection and a transparent and competitive marketplace
for all consumers, particularly the most vulnerable. The report notes several
specific areas of CFPB concern—including issuer failure to report payment
amounts to credit bureaus and issuer practices with respect to credit line
decreases—that will be the subject of further work as the CFPB works to promote
an equitable recovery. The CFPB also intends to increase its use of demographic
data in its future research.

insideARM Perspective:

Now that the Senate confirmed  Rohit Chopra as the Director of the CFPB, it will be interesting to see the next steps the CPFB takes regarding these issues. Based on Mr. Chopra’s previous stance on consumer issues, it is likely he will continue the initiatives started by Acting Director Uejio.

After
months of limbo, on September 30, 2021, the United States Senate confirmed
Rohit Chopra as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The vote confirming Mr. Chopra was 50-48 down party lines. Senators Cornyn and Paul did not vote.  

Prior to his nomination, Chopra served as a Commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); however, he is no stranger to the CFPB. Before serving at the FTC, he served as the CFPB’s Assistant Director and separately as the CFPB’s  Student Loan Ombudsman,
during which he was critical of schools, banks, and servicers in their
handling of loans and lack of transparency with borrowers.  

insideARM previously
published additional information about Chopra’s position
on debt collection.

[article_ad]

insideARM Perspective:

For the last several months (at least), while this confirmation has been pending, it has felt as though many decisions at the CFPB have been somewhat on hold. Hopefully, this confirmation will give the agency some permanent direction, providing clarity to the ARM industry (and many other industries) and consumers alike. 

In the latest episode of the Debt
Collection Drill podcast series, Moss & Barnett attorneys Aylix Jensen,
Michael Etmund and John Rossman provide specific guidance on the circumstances
in which a collection agency may legally delete all information previously
furnished to a credit reporting agency, also known as a tradeline
deletion. 

Listen here.

[article_ad]

Please
stay tuned to insideARM for a revolutionary “reboot” of the Debt Collection
Drill series from Moss & Barnett coming in November 2021!

So remember when I said the state level legislation is where people need to be focused right now…

Anyway, new bill in MA would make this (amongst other things) illegal:

 [article_ad]

“caus[ing] to be displayed a Massachusetts area code on the recipient’s caller ID unless the person making, placing or initiating the call or text message maintains a physical presence in the commonwealth…”

And if thou so causes:

“Aggrieved persons… may [sue you for] fines of not more than $10,000 per each deceptive call; provided that said fine shall be not less than $5,000 for each deceptive call involving a consumer age 65 years or older.”

Full bill here: Fun New Massachsetts Bill for us To Worry About

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently
affirmed judgment in a debt collector’s favor against claims that its efforts
to collect attorney’s fees incurred to collect a debt — including the fees
incurred in collecting the attorney’s fees — violated the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

In
so ruling, the Seventh Circuit concluded that dismissal of a related state
court action brought by the debt collector to collect attorney’s fees for lack
of prosecution did not have preclusive effect, and no violation of the FDCPA,
15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., occurred because the plain language of the underlying
agreement required the consumer to pay all collection costs including
attorney’s fees.

A
copy of the opinion in Robbins v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC is
available at:  Link to Opinion.

A
consumer incurred medical expenses for treatment provided to her minor children
through a hospital system.  The written agreement signed by the consumer
at the time services were rendered provided that she agreed to pay the charges
the hospital billed to her, along with “costs of collection, including attorney[‘s]
fees and interest,” if she failed to timely make payment.  After the
consumer defaulted on the debt, the provider hired a company to collect the
debt who filed a collection lawsuit.

After
initially disputing the debt, the consumer agreed that she owed the $1,499 in
medical charges and paid that amount in full, but refused to pay the debt
collector’s attorney’s fees.  The debt collector offered to accept $375 to
resolve the fee dispute, which the consumer rejected over warnings from the
debt collector’s attorneys that prolonged litigation over the outstanding fees
would result in her being liable for additional legal fees
(“fees-on-fees”). 

The
court in the collection action eventually entered judgment in the debt
collector’s favor, ordering the consumer to pay the debt collector $1,725 for
its incurred attorney’s fees.  The consumer appealed the ruling. 
Under then-existing state law, the appeal initiated a de novo proceeding, and
the debt collector filed a new complaint to recover the fee award.

Meanwhile,
prior to the small claims judgment, the consumer separately sued the debt
collector in federal court alleging that the debt collector’s attempts to
collect attorney’s fees and fees-on-fees that were not contractually owed
violated the FDCPA’s prohibitions against using “any false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt” (§1692e) and the use of “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt” (§1692f). 

The
federal trial court stayed the case to await the outcome of the state
proceedings which remained dormant for nearly two years, perhaps due to the
small amount at stake, and was eventually dismissed with prejudice for failure
to prosecute.

After
the stay was lifted in the federal case, the parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment.  The consumer advanced two arguments that would provide
a basis for her FDCPA claim: (i) that res judicata effectively bars the debt
collector from arguing that the agreement required the consumer to pay
fees-on-fees as a result of the dismissal of the debt collector’s re-filed
state court action, and; (ii) that the costs-of-collection provision in the
agreement did not contractually obligate the consumer to pay
fees-on-fees. 

The
federal trial court rejected these arguments and entered judgment in the debt
collector’s favor.  The consumer timely appealed. 

On
appeal, the Seventh Circuit first reviewed the consumer’s res judicata
argument, which is governed by Indiana’s preclusion rules under the Full Faith
and Credit Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738).  Under Indiana law, res judicata, or
claim preclusion “acts as complete bar to subsequent litigation on the same
claim between identical parties.”  Edwards v. Edwards, 132
N.E.3d 391, 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).  However, claim preclusion is
invoked defensively “to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim that the
plaintiff has previously litigated and lost” (Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel,
P.C. v. Adpoint Inc., 24 N.E.3d 487, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)) —
and is not an available remedy for a plaintiff to reassert a claim it has
already won.

Re-framing
the consumer’s argument under issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, which
can be used ‘offensively’ when the “plaintiff seeks to foreclose the defendant
from litigating an issue the defendant ha[d] previously litigated
unsuccessfully in an action with another party” (Tofany v. NBS Imaging Sys., Inc.,
616 N.E.2d 1034, 1037 (Ind. 1993)) offered no different result. 

Primarily,
the Indiana Supreme Court has held that a dismissal for failure to prosecute
does not have issue-preclusive effect because “no issue was actually
litigated.” Afolabi, 849 N.E.2d at 1176.  Although
this was independently sufficient to defeat the consumer’s claim, the Seventh
Circuit also noted that relevant state law also considers certain factors,
including the “incentive to litigate the prior action” to consider the fairness
of the offensive use of issue preclusion.  Tofany at
1038.  The Seventh Circuit found that this factor also defeated any issue
preclusion claim, concluding that the debt collector had little incentive to
prosecute the dispute over attorney’s fees given the small amount of damages at
stake.

For
these reasons, the Seventh Circuit held that the preclusion doctrine does not apply,
and the Seventh Circuit rejected the consumer’s res judicata argument.

Next,
the Seventh Circuit addressed the consumer’s claim that the agreement did not
authorize the debt collector to collect fees-on-fees, and the debt collector’s
collection attempts was a false statement in violation of § 1692e and an unfair
debt collection practice in violation of § 1692f. 

Specifically,
in executing the agreement the consumer agreed that “[i]n the event I do not
pay such charges when due, I agree to pay costs of collection, including
attorney[’s] fees and interest.” The consumer argued that “costs of collection”
should be limited only to the cost of collecting unpaid medical bills and
attorney’s fees related to collection of the bills, while the debt collector argued
for the language to be interpreted more broadly, to include all costs
associated with collection, including the cost of collecting attorney’s fees.

The
Seventh Circuit concluded that the phrase is comprehensive, and that reading
“costs of collection” to exclude fees-on-fees would “not fully compensate [the
hospital] for enforcing its rights” and run contrary to Indiana law’s
interpretation of standard fee-shifting provisions.  Walton
v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 825 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005) (Indiana law recognizes that the “purpose of a fee-shifting
provision is to make the prevailing party to a contract whole.”). 

Because
the contractual language permitted the collection of fees-on-fees, the
consumer’s collection attempts did not violate the FDCPA.

For
these reasons, judgment in the debt collector’s favor was affirmed.

MADISON, Wis. — As
students return to the classroom, the State family wanted to ensure every child
has the necessary supplies for a successful year. After hosting the 1^st
Annual Great State Team Charity Golf Outing, and running an online fundraising
campaign, State matched every gift to donate $5700 to the Boys and Girls Club.

“Given the significant disruptions to education over the past 18 months,
State wanted to be part of the solution in ensuring every child is ready to
learn,” said Tim Haag, State’s president. “We want to support the heroic
efforts of teachers, administrators, parents and students throughout the
pandemic by providing the financial support necessary to purchase supplies. I am
proud of the generosity of our team and thrilled to make a difference in the
lives of so many students.”

State’s initial gift was featured in a News 3 Now story about the community-wide Back-to-School
fundraiser hosted by the Boys and Girls Club. State is delighted to support the
academic achievements of students this school year.

 [article_ad]

About State

State improves the
financial picture for healthcare providers by delivering increased financial
results while ensuring a positive patient experience. Rooted in a tradition of
ethics, integrity and innovation since 1949, State uses data analytics to drive
performance and speech analytics with ongoing training to ensure patient
satisfaction. A family-owned company now in its third generation of leadership,
State assists healthcare organizations with services spanning the complete
revenue cycle including Pre-Service Financial Clearance, Early Out Self-Pay
Resolution, Insurance Follow-Up and Bad Debt Collection. To learn more visit: www.statecollectionservice.com.