In the newspaper business, a story about a dog biting someone is not always front-page news. The saying goes, a story where a man bites a dog, now that is something that needs to go on the front page. Change may be the one constant that exists in life, but it is jaw-dropping changes that are happening in the accounts receivable management industry as we sit here today. The number of “man bites dog” stories that are occurring at the same time is unprecedented.

Consider, for a moment …

• The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has been overhauled for the first time since its enactment more than 40 years ago. The industry has been waiting seven years for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to release its debt collection rule, and it is finally here.
• The Supreme Court is considering whether to gut the Telephone Consumer Protection Act concerning how calls are made using an automated telephone dialing system. That is a definition that has been under a legal and regulatory microscope for 30 years, and we’ll know in a matter of months whether it will continue to exist or not.
• Consumer communication choice is now a real thing with right party contacts by phones continuing to fall off dramatically and collection agencies having no choice but to text consumers despite the legal uncertainties.
• More employees in the ARM industry are working from home than working in an office. Is there anyone in the industry who thought they would ever see that day?
• Many companies in the industry had their best year ever in 2020. That alone is worthy of significant pause and reflection. Seriously, we need to pause and reflect on this.
• There will be a new director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will likely mean a change in priorities and enforcement mandates. Some predict the number of enforcement actions, including those against companies in the credit and collection industry, will increase.
• The new technology products and services that are being offered in the ARM space are growing at an exponential rate from companies we have never seen before and most come with machine learning. 

Any of these items are incredibly newsworthy in and of themselves. But, when taken together, happening simultaneously, the enormity and significance can be lost on us. We need to stop for a moment and appreciate the inflection point in the industry’s illustrious history that we are witnessing right now. It can be easy to get lost in the minutiae of daily work and the fires that need to be put out, but we need to understand the gravity of what we are experiencing and the tremendous impact it is going to have on the industry for years to come.

[article_ad]

This concept of taking stock is nothing new; mentors, life coaches, and trusted advisors have been making this kind of recommendation for years. Such self-assessment is helpful in ensuring comprehension, sticking to a plan and meeting goals and objectives, and charting a path to continue moving forward. Senior executives may also do the same at a corporate level, but you don’t usually see industry-wide self-assessments. Understanding just how much of a company’s collection operation has changed and is going to change because of what is going on right now can help individuals and companies make sure their objectives are aligned with the direction in which their industry is moving.

Rarely, if ever, has so much change occurred in this industry at any one time. And the changes are affecting every nook and corner of the industry — operations, compliance, human resources, training, communication strategies, and more. A collection operation at the end of 2021 could end up being completely different than it was just two or three years ago. To see an industry go through so many dramatic changes in such a short timespan is not something that happens every day.

What is also important to understand is, like prescription medicines, all of these events can have interactions with one another. Like, for example, what is the impact of the CFPB’s debt collection rule going to be, when you take into account what the Supreme Court is considering the ATDS definition within the TCPA? And couple both of those with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a new director at the CFPB, and it can be very difficult to predict what is going to happen for the industry.

Taking a step back and looking at what is going on across the industry and attempting to assess the impact these events are going to have is an important exercise to not only mark this moment in history but to help understand how the future of the industry is going to be forever altered.

Tim Collins is a 48 year veteran of the ARM industry, having served as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer for multiple industry-leading organizations. He is a well-known industry thought leader and innovator.

It’s convenient for consumer groups and legislators to point to the complaint statistics published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to justify the need for increased regulation. As a consumer myself, I appreciate the data-driven approach. But since the seven-years-in-the-making debt collection rule is now under scrutiny, it’s worth taking a look at the numbers. What they show me is the clear need to focus on three areas.

The major headline is that complaints are up 60% from 2019 to 2020. What’s really driving that increase? It’s not necessarily what you’d expect based on what’s reported.

Consumer Complaints to the CFPB for 2019 vs. 2020

Credit Reporting Generates Five Times More Complaints than Debt Collection

The top two categories in both years are Credit Reporting and Debt Collection. Credit Reporting, however, received 5x the number of complaints than debt collection in 2020, and 3x as many in 2019.

Also, from 2019 to 2020, while debt collection complaints increased by 16%, credit reporting complaints increased by 105%, representing 87% of the 60% increase in complaints overall.

The Largest Increase in Complaints Overall Driven by Identity Theft

Digging in, the lion’s share of credit reporting complaints seems to be driven by identity theft. By far, the largest sub-category complaint under credit reporting is “Incorrect info on your report”, with a 118% increase from just over 88,000 in 2019 to just under 193,000 in 2020. By far, the largest sub-category here (with an increase of 152%) is “Information belongs to someone else.” According to my contact in Consumer Response at the CFPB, this most likely is a result of identity theft (there is no box to check that says “ID theft”).

Credit Reporting Complaints in 2019 vs. 2020, with Detail for the Two Largest Sub-Categories

While “personal info incorrect” increased by 160%, the absolute number of complaints in this category was far less. It logically follows that the next most significant category would be investigating the instances of bad information. On a percentage basis, lengthy investigations with poor status updates saw the most significant increases by far. While not an acceptable excuse from a consumer standpoint, it’s not hard to imagine how Covid workplace restrictions would cause delays in a task requiring manual investigation and coordination. It will be important to see whether these instances come down to pre-Covid levels in 2021.

Debt Collection Complaints in 2019 vs. 2020, with Detail for the Two Largest Sub-Categories

Similarly (though on a much smaller scale), one of the largest sub-categories of debt collection complaints that saw an increase in the last year is “Debt result of ID theft”, with a 33% increase.

In the “Debt not owed” category, the largest percentage increase is due to “result of ID theft.” As for the other cause of significant increase, “debt not yours,” I’ll note two things:

[article_ad]

One, while it’s possible a rogue debt collector or debt buyer will try to collect on a debt simply not owed, more often the issue is that a consumer has a dispute with the lender or creditor. So,

Two, there is no category for the consumer to select that’s something like, “I recognize this but I disagree that I owe it; It’s the wrong amount; I didn’t agree to the charge; I got terrible service; The supervisor told me I wouldn’t have to pay, etc.”

Communication Tactics are Not the Driving Problem

When consumer advocates argue that debt collection rules aren’t stringent enough, they most frequently talk about communication tactics – repeated calls, abusive language, etc. But the data shows that this is actually one of the least-cited issues by consumers…and it’s falling.

For instance, in 2020, “frequent or repeated calls” was the category selected in just over 3.5% of all debt collection complaints, and this was a 28% decrease from the prior year.

So if you were to ask me where the CFPB should place its focus under Acting Director Uejio and, once confirmed, Director Chopra, it seems obvious based on the data that the areas of greatest impact would be:

• Improving the process of dispute resolution — and keeping the consumer informed along the way,
• Getting accurate information about a debt from the originating creditor to any downstream party — whether that’s a credit bureau, a debt buyer, a debt collector, or another servicer, and
• Working with Congress and all applicable regulatory partners to stem the tide of identity theft with the same oomph that’s been applied to addressing robocalls.

UPDATE: February 3, 2021, at 6:00 PM EST. Zoom contacted us to provide this statement:

“The FTC today confirmed that the settlement we reached last year is now final. The advancements we have made to our platform are well-documented, and we are continuously improving our privacy and security programs to enhance our product. We remain committed to fulfilling the expectations of the millions of people who trust and rely on our platform.”

—————————————-

Earlier this week the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its final settlement with Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (“Zoom”) over allegedly misleading consumers about the security of, among other things, Zoom meetings.[1]  The positions taken by former Commissioners Chopra (Biden’s pick to run the CFPB) and Slaughter (now Acting FTC Chair) provide a window into the policy direction we are likely to see in the coming years.

As in other FTC data security and privacy enforcement actions, the FTC’s order prohibited Zoom from making privacy and data security promises to consumers it could not or would not keep so that users would be fully aware of the extent to which Zoom can or cannot protect information from unauthorized access.  The final order also has a remedial program that will span 60 months and requires Zoom to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive ten-point data security compliance management system, including engaging Zoom’s highest governing body in the process, conducting a risk assessment, retaining a qualified privacy or data security coordinator, and evolving a breach notification and remediation program. 

[article_ad]

In addition, before rolling out new products or services Zoom must dedicate qualified security personnel to evaluating these proposed new offerings.  Again, there is no monetary fine or penalty and the FTC settlement includes mandates for Zoom to get independent program assessments performed by a qualified third party on a regular basis and to notify the FTC of any significant “covered incidents.”

Although this Zoom enforcement action is similar to other recent FTC privacy and data security enforcement actions, what is notable is that the Commission voted 3-2 to finalize the settlement.  Separate dissenting statements were filed by Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. These statements offer insight into what regulatory approaches we should expect as they move into leadership roles respectively at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and FTC, assuming their nominations are confirmed. 

In his dissenting statement, then Commissioner Chopra explained that he voted against the “weak” settlement due to the “alarm from the public” when the proposed settlement was released for comment.  Commissioner Chopra disclosed that “unbeknownst to the public during the comment period, Zoom’s business practices and access controls allowed … the People’s Republic of China … to get access to user data.”[2]  Interestingly, Commissioner Chopra criticizes the “paperwork requirements in the FTC’s settlement” and writes that the FTC undermined its own credibility by approving this approach on the eve of a change of administration.  Clearly, Commissioner Chopra expresses disappointment in the FTC as, in his words, “an enforcer and as a government agency that listens to the public.”  What Commissioner Chopra had hoped for instead was “real accountability relying on a thorough investigation.” 

Meanwhile, then Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter harshly criticized the FTC’s enforcement approach for a video conferencing vendor so ubiquitous in people’s work and business lives.  She was disappointed that the FTC’s order “did not address Zoom’s privacy failings and did not require Zoom to provide any recourse to affected users.”[3]   In her dissent, Commissioner Slaughter noted that the Department of Justice recently charged a Zoom employee with “allegedly participating in a scheme to surveil, disclose, and censor political and religious speech of individuals located in the United States and around the world at the behest of the People’s Republic of China.”[4]  Reporting transparency was an FTC requirement Commissioner Slaughter felt was warranted instead of simply having a third party assessor review Zoom’s privacy and data security program.  Focused on “how vulnerable consumers feel using zoom” Commissioner Slaughter articulated a preference for companies like Zoom to adopt a strong privacy program.

These former FTC Commissioners appear well aligned with one another in their approaches to consumer protection enforcement.  Principles we may distill from these dissents for future FTC and CFPB enforcement include these:  first, if and when companies make privacy promises they cannot and do not keep, if consumers are harmed or feel vulnerable, companies’ plans for resolution must be scaled to include some form of transparent demonstration to the public that they are coming into compliance; second, companies that fail consumers should provide recourse to affected consumers; and, third, governmental agencies designed to protect consumers should “listen to the public.”

—————————————–

[1] See, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/02/ftc-gives-final-approval-settlement-zoom-over-allegations-company

[2] See, footnote 4 at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1586865/20210129_final_chopra_zoom_statement__0.pdf

[3] See, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1586861/dissenting_statement_of_commissioner_slaughter_regarding_final_approval_of_the_settlement_with_zoom_2.pdf

[4] See, footnote 2, ibid.

KATY, Texas — Universal Fidelity LP (UFLP) is proud to announce Jessica Hearn as majority owner and CEO.  We are pleased that UFLP is now certified as a Women-Owned Small Business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the WOSB program. UFLP is celebrating 30 years in the accounts receivable management (ARM) and call center industry this February. 

In the last 30 years, the company has watched the ever-changing landscape of the industry firsthand.  Jessica stated, “the technology enhancements this industry has been a part of and provided to clients and consumers is vast, and I look forward to the future enhancements.”  UFLP has experienced the Great Recession, hurricanes, including Hurricane Harvey, and now a pandemic.  These events have made the company experienced and prepared for the ever-changing environment. 

Jessica began her career in the ARM industry in 1996.  She is a graduate of the University of St. Thomas (Houston) with her bachelor’s degree in Business Administration.

[article_ad]

Jessica has managed and led multiple departments throughout her 26 years at UFLP, she received the RMAI Certification for certified receivables compliance professional, and she is a member of the ACA Financial Literacy committee.  Jessica participates in annual industry conferences and is a member of the Greater Houston Women’s Chamber of Commerce.

A resident of Katy, Texas, Jessica enjoys spending time with her husband, three children, three Great Danes, and two French Bulldogs.  Her husband, Scott Hearn, also has been in the ARM industry since 1994. Jessica enjoys volunteering in many facets of their community.  Her most memorable volunteer experience was teaching financial literacy at a local high school. 

“There is a great opportunity to educate the next generation on credit, debt, school loans, budgets, credit scores, the whole encompassing financial responsibility.”

UFLP is a national accounts receivable management and call center operation. Universal Fidelity is looking forward to 2021, their 30^th year of business, and the opportunities afforded by WOSB certification.  www.uflp.com

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Velo Law announced today a long-awaited merger with the law firm of VanHattum & Associates.  Velo Law, a leading collection agency and law firm operating in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Montana, continues to expand serving the accounts receivable needs of businesses in key industries.

Over the decades, Velo Law has grown and become recognized in debt collections for the healthcare, financial, education, municipal, and property management industries. The merger provides additional growth and provides the clients of VanHattum & Associates with expanded collection services.

Jeffrey VanHattum, President of VanHattum, brings to Velo Law over thirty-six years of specialized expertise in civil and commercial litigation, bankruptcy, and legal research. VanHattum received his JD from Wayne State University.

In addition to a growing roster of clients, expanding services to meet future needs is a requisite for continued growth at Velo Law.  In 2020, the corporate offices, located in northeast Grand Rapids, were expanded to over 10,000 square feet to house all account receivable activities in one location.  The expansion also included dedicated in-house hearing rooms for on-line court appearances.

Additional information is available at www.velo.law and at info@velow.law.

In December 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued six opinions addressing Article III standing issues related to violations alleged under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). These opinions revisit the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and clarify that a plaintiff in an FDCPA case is required to provide proof of a concrete injury in fact to establish Article III standing.

[article_ad]

Emotional distress damages as Article III standing

A violation of any provision of the FDCPA entitles the consumer to an award of actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000, costs, and attorney’s fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). The statute does not define “actual damages.” However, courts determined that actual damages under the FDCPA may include compensation for emotional distress. Thus, a plaintiff’s allegation of emotional harm provides Article III standing. Accordingly, consumer attorneys typically allege emotional distress damages in FDCPA complaints, whether they can later be proven or not.

Sarah Doerr, shareholder at Moss & Barnett, shared the following insight:

Emotional distress damages are a throw-away claim that plaintiff’s attorneys often include but rarely prove up. It is not “emotional distress” to be annoyed or temporarily inconvenienced.

As clarified by the Seventh Circuit in the recent deluge of decisions, an FDCPA plaintiff must establish that the statutory violation presented an appreciable risk of harm.  Bare allegations of emotional distress without any proof are insufficient for establishing an injury.

Burden of proof for claims of emotional distress

The Supreme Court has not opined on a standard applicable to emotional distress damages under the FDCPA. As a result, there is a split among district courts as to the degree of specificity that is needed to sustain a claim of emotional distress damages. 

Some district courts have concluded that plaintiffs must meet the relevant state law standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress to prove emotional distress damages under the FDCPA.  Other courts have applied a lower, more lenient standard.  However, the recent Seventh Circuit decisions suggest that even under the less demanding standard, claims for emotional distress must be supported by “actual evidence.”

Jessica Klander, shareholder at Bassford Remele, shared the following insight:

The vast majority of emotional distress claims we defend against are “garden variety” claims involving vague and general allegations of “stress,” “anxiety” or “sleeplessness.”  Most jurisdictions do not require any extrinsic evidence to support these allegations other than a plaintiff’s testimony, which make them hard to dispose of by motion. 

But if the plaintiff alleges anything beyond these general allegations or claims medical treatment was sought, most courts no longer consider the claim “garden-variety.”  As a result, the plaintiff’s emotional distress claim requires the plaintiff to consent to review of their medical records and submit to an independent medical examination.  

Evidence needed to support a claim for emotional distress

Some district courts require that plaintiffs alleging damages for emotional distress under the FDCPA must provide some corroborative evidence of their emotional distress, apart from their own testimony.

John Boyle, shareholder at Moss & Barnett, shared the following insight:

Many jurisdictions consider an emotional distress claim as putting a plaintiff’s medical history into controversy — especially if the plaintiff is claiming something more than “garden variety” annoyance and mental anguish.  A claim of severe emotional distress often opens the door to conducting discovery of the plaintiff’s prior mental health and treatment history. 

Thus, in such a situation, written discovery should include requests for names of providers and inquiries into treatment history, symptoms, alleged harm, and prior history of emotional trauma.  It is not uncommon that an early inquiry into a plaintiff’s medical history will often cause a plaintiff who is asserting little more than a technical statutory violation to withdraw claims for emotional distress. 

For the plaintiff who insists on pursuing a serious claim of alleged severe emotional harm, thoughtful inquiry during the plaintiff’s deposition is crucial.  It is important to explore what other factors have been a source of emotional distress or trauma in the plaintiff’s life (such as a recent divorce, loss of a job, death or serious illness of a loved one, drug or alcohol misuse, prior history of anxiety or depression, or pre-existing treatment for psychological issues).  It may very well be that the symptoms the plaintiff claims to be suffering from the alleged acts of the defendant are actually connected to and arise out of long pre-existing and underlying conditions.

Klander agreed, stating:

The plaintiff’s medical records often do not support their emotional distress claims or point to other circumstances having nothing to do with the collection efforts. 

In addition to the need for providing relevant medical records, Doerr identified additional challenges associated with proving emotional distress:

Where a plaintiff is being pursued by more than one creditor, she has the additional challenge of showing and quantifying the distress is somehow traceable and attributable to one particular creditor. 

The Seventh Circuit’s clarification relating to actual damages will be welcomed by defense counsel for collection agencies. 

More to come from the perspective of collection agencies.

Citing impacts from the spread of the coronavirus disease, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced yesterday that the state has renewed, for the 10^th time, an order to halt the collection of medical and student debt owed to the state of New York.

The order — first issued in March of 2020 and renewed in April, in May, in June, in July, in August, in September, in October, in November, and in December — was made to ease the financial burdens for many workers and families by halting the collection of medical and student debt owed to the state of New York and referred to the OAG for collection — with limited exceptions — through February 28, 2021.

According to the announcement, the OAG collects certain debts owed to the state of New York via settlements and lawsuits brought on behalf of the state of New York and state agencies. A total of more than 165,000 matters currently fit the criteria for a suspension of state debt collection, including, but not limited to:

• Patients that owe medical debt due to the five state hospitals and the five state veterans’ homes;
• Students that owe student debt due to State University of New York (SUNY) campuses; and
• Individual debtors, sole-proprietors, small business owners, and certain homeowners that owe debt relating to oil spill cleanup and removal costs, property damage, and breach of contract, as well as other fees owed to state agencies.

The temporary policy has also automatically suspended the accrual of interest and the collection of fees on all outstanding state medical and student debt referred to the OAG for collection, so New Yorkers are not penalized for taking advantage of this program.

Attorney General James said New Yorkers with non-medical or non-student debt owed to the state of New York and referred to the OAG may also apply to temporarily halt the collection of state debt. Individuals seeking to apply for this temporary relief can complete an online application or get more information via the OAG’s coronavirus website or hotline at 800-771-7755.

The power in Washington, DC is shifting . . . quickly, but the Democratic stronghold on Congressional oversight of the CFPB remains steady.  Maxine Waters (D-CA), Chairwoman of the House Committee on Financial Services recently announced new Subcommittee Chairs for the 117^th  Congress, appointing  Ed Perlmutter (CO-7) as the new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions (CPFI).  House Rules give this position significant influence over the CFPB and ARM industry. 

The Rules governing the House of Representatives create standing committees with defined jurisdictions.  The House Financial Services Committee (HFC)  enjoys broad jurisdiction over all “banks and banking,” “money and credit,” and “financial aid to commerce and industry,” including the ARM Industry.  Any legislation involving financial services is referred first to the Financial Services Committee for consideration.  Financial services legislation does not become law without the approval of this committee.  Powerful is the committee that oversees the nation’s financial systems. 

The CPFI Subcommittee is one of 6 standing subcommittees of the HFC, each lead a chairperson who manages subcommittee agendas.  The CPFI Subcommittee is dedicated solely to overseeing consumer protection and financial institutions, including “all matters related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”  Thus, Ed Perlmutter will serve as the Chairman of the CFPI Subcommittee overseeing the most powerful financial regulator in the nation.  That’s who regulates the regulators.

So, who is Ed Perlmutter?  Rep. Perlmutter is an attorney by trade as well as a moderate Democrat from Colorado who served as a Colorado State Senator from 1995 to 2003.  In 2007 he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he has served since.  Rep. Perlmutter has sponsored more than a dozen bills related to the financial sector of the economy including the Relief for Small Business and Nonprofits Act (H.R. 6361) to provide loan payment relief to small businesses and nonprofits affected by Covid-19, the FinCEN Improvement Act of 2018 (H.R.6411) to enhance enforcement of financial crimes, and the Examination and Supervisory Privilege Parity Act of 2014 (H.R. 5062) which leaves intact legal privileges asserted by non-depository regulated entities when sharing information with government agencies. 

More recently, Rep. Perlmutter introduced the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 (the SAFE Bank Act) (H.R. 1595) which seeks to prohibit federal banking regulators from penalizing depository institutions for providing banking services to legitimate marijuana businesses (this bill was passed by the House and remains in the Senate). 

By any measure, Rep. Perlmutter has experience dealing with issues impacting the financial services industry.  He has also demonstrated his willingness to be critical of regulators who oversee the financial services markets.  How he will regulate the CFPB remains to be seen. 

The ARM industry should have high expectations for Rep. Perlmutter.  Now that the Director of the CFPB serves at the pleasure of the President, the need for regulatory oversight remains high.  It will be important for Rep. Perlmutter to ensure that the CFPB remains true to its mission while at the same time stays within the authority of Dodd-Frank.  For the ARM Industry, it will be important to educate Rep. Perlmutter as to the finer points of Regulation F and the important protections it brings for consumers and clarity for the industry.  The ARM industry is counting on Rep. Perlmutter to appropriately regulate the regulators.

With Democrats in control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, consumer financial services companies are understandably anxious about the regulatory environment.

Last week, the newly-empowered California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (the “DFPI”) gave us a sense of what to expect when it announced an investigation into 12 debt collectors that it alleged were engaged in unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive debt collection practices.  The DFPI licenses and regulates a wide variety of parties involved in providing or servicing consumer financial products and services in California.  The DFPI has existed since 2013, but was known as the Department of Business Oversight until 2020, when it was renamed and granted significantly enhanced oversight and enforcement powers by the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (the “CCFPL”). This is the first major action taken by the DFPI and it provides a sense for the new regulatory landscape.

In complaints filed with the DFPI, consumers alleged that these debt collectors called repeatedly, failed to validate debts, and threatened to sue the consumers for debts they do not owe.  The debt collectors have until mid-February to respond to the subpoenas.

The CCFPL allows the DFPI to enforce new provisions relating to unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices (“UDAAP”) against statutorily covered persons and service providers, to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under California’s consumer financial laws and to exercise nonexclusive oversight and enforcement authority under California’s (and in some cases, federal) consumer financial laws.

Because national banks, state-chartered banks and most state-licensed entities are exempt from the CCFPL, the biggest impact of the CCFPL will likely be on nonbank financial companies and service providers to financial companies.

Commenting on the DFPI’s announcement, former CFPB Director Richard Cordray told Yahoo Finance that “[i]t’s a good sign that they are starting fast, and the action they’re bringing against these debt collectors is meaningful.” Cordray consulted with California Governor Gavin Newsom and state legislators on how to empower the DFPI.

The DFPI investigation comes as the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) looks set to return to pre-2018 levels of activity.  Under Cordray, the CFPB’s Director from its inception until 2018, many felt that the CFPB was a prime example of aggressive government overreach and that it was too insulated from political oversight.  Others felt that it was a key watchdog agency working to protect American consumers from predatory financial practices.  In any event, it certainly was active, obtaining an aggregate of approximately $12 billion in penalties and restitution from companies subject to its jurisdiction.

After Cordray resigned to run for Governor of Ohio, the CFPB has been more restrained in its enforcement and rulemaking agenda, first under acting Director Mick Mulvaney and then under Director Kathy Kraninger.

But with Elizabeth Warren ally Rohit Chopra being widely reported to be President Biden’s pick to lead the CFPB, it looks likely that the CFPB will return to its agenda under Cordray. Chopra previously served as the assistant director at the CFPB, as well as a student loan ombudsman.

“It’s a return to the days of the CFPB as it was under my leadership,” said Cordray. And “this portends the opportunity for a great deal of direct cooperation and coordination between the DFPI and the newly-aggressive CFPB, which is what we will have in the wake of Rohit Chopra taking the reins,” he added.

Consumer financial services companies, take note.

DULUTH, Ga. Crown Asset Management, LLC (CAM) Today Announced the Promotion of Five Team Members.

Linda Dameron has been promoted from Accounting Manager to Director of Consumer Accounting. Since joining CAM in 2011, Linda has overseen Consumer Accounting, worked with Post-Sale Support Teams and worked with CAM’s servicers to ensure account balance and information integrity. She focuses on establishing new standards for excellence which assist CAM’s initiatives to exceed industry standards.

Rebekah Luebcke has been promoted from Relationship Manager to Director of Operations. Since joining CAM in 2017, Rebekah has provided oversight and support to Agency and Law Firm partners. She has overseen the onboarding of various new partnerships and been integral in the advancement of both internal and external process management and improvement.

Lisa Scoggins has been promoted from Director of Process Management to Vice President of Operations.  Since joining CAM in 2018, Lisa has successfully managed many operational and company-wide initiatives including the successful upgrade/conversion of CAM’s core processing system.  She spearheaded the refinement and implementation of enhanced process documentation standards, as well as the planning and coordination CAM’s pandemic response plan. 

Bob Deter has been promoted from Director of Business Development to Vice President of Business Development.  Since joining CAM in 2018, Bob has led our expansion in the distressed debt purchasing arena.  While expanding our Issuer relationships, he has also expanded our engagement with industry associations.  Bob has deeply rooted knowledge and experience in the distressed debt market, on both the sell and purchase side of transactions, in addition to his knowledge and experience in quality implementation, training and development and regulatory compliance.   

Shawn Bradley has been promoted from Director of Finance to Vice President of Finance. Since joining CAM in July 2020, Shawn has made immediate impacts in a number of areas including finance, corporate strategy, and capital markets. He brings a tremendous amount of experience in financial structuring, thought leadership, and is actively involved in helping CAM develop corporate growth strategies.

About Crown Asset Management, LLC

Founded in 2004 by Brian K. Williams, Crown Asset Management, LLC (CAM) is recognized by RMAI as a “RMAI Certified Receivables Business” and purchasing firm with extensive experience acquiring distressed consumer receivables. CAM has a successful history of operations as a debt buyer in the Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) industry. CAM has purchased more than five hundred consumer credit portfolios, including credit cards, automobile loans, consumer loans, marketplace lending, judgments, and other types of specialty portfolios. 

Brian K. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, stated, “I am very proud of our leadership team which is rich in industry knowledge and experience.  Today I am pleased to announce the promotion of five of these team members in recognition of their hard work, dedication, and accomplishments”.  

“2020 has been a challenging year the world over.  Our industry is no exception.  While we will continue to face challenges, CAM’s leadership team enables us to move past these challenges.  Today we announce the promotion of five members of this team.  These promotions recognize their qualifications and achievements and further build our foundation of strength and integrity.” said Scott Arnold, Chief Financial Officer.