Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Maurice Wutscher blog and is republished here with permission.

The California Office of the Attorney General issued a Notice of Third Set of Proposed Modifications to its regulations relating to the California Consumer Privacy Act on Oct. 12. Written comments will be accepted until 5 pm on Oct. 28, 2020.

There are four modifications, which the AG summarizes in its notice.

First, “[p]roposed section 999.306, subd. (b)(3), provides examples of how businesses that collect personal information in the course of interacting with consumers offline can provide the notice of right to opt-out of the sale of personal information through an offline method.”

This proposed modification is not surprising since the examples are similar to how § 999.305(b) and (c) describe how a business that interacts with consumers offline can provide the notice at collection with printed forms, signage or orally by telephone.  The notice provided by an offline method must “facilitate[] consumers’ awareness of their right to opt-out.”  Section 999.306(d) still provides that the opt-out notice is not required if the business does not sell personal information and so states in its privacy policy.

[article_ad]

Second, “[p]roposed section 999.315, subd. (h), provides guidance on how a business’s methods for submitting requests to opt-out should be easy and require minimal steps. It provides illustrative examples of methods designed with the purpose or substantial effect of subverting or impairing a consumer’s choice to opt-out.”

This proposed modification explains that it must be easy for consumers to opt-out of the sale of their personal information, and that it can take no more steps to opt-out than it takes to opt-in.  There can be no language intended to dissuade opt-out, the opt-out link cannot force consumers to search through text to find the mechanism for submitting a request, and only personal information necessary to complete the request may be collected. Additionally, no confusing language may be used, and the AG provides this example of a double-negative: “Don’t Not Sell My Personal Information.” 

Third, “[p]roposed section 999.326, subd. (a), clarifies the proof that a business may require an authorized agent to provide, as well as what the business may require a consumer to do to verify their request.”

The current regulations provide that when a consumer submits a request through an authorized agent, the business may require that the consumer “[p]rovide the authorized agent signed permission to do so.”  This proposed modification shifts the business’s focus to the agent, who may be required “to provide proof that the consumer gave the agent signed permission to submit the request.”

Fourth, “[p]roposed section 999.332, subd. (a), clarifies that businesses subject to either section 999.330, section 999.331, or both of these sections are required to include a description of the processes set forth in those sections in their privacy policies.”

Section 999.332 relates to notices that must be provided when consumers are under the age of 16.  This proposed modification is simply a clean-up that changes an “and” to “and/or.”  Section 999.330 pertains to the opt-in process when a business “has actual knowledge that it sells the personal information of a consumer under the age of 13 . . .”  Section 999.331 applies when consumers are 13 to 15 years of age.

Overall, these proposed modifications seem straightforward and likely won’t be the cause of much consternation, particularly in comparison to the looming ballot initiative vote on the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Clark Hill PLC today announced Leslie C. Bender has joined the firm as Senior Counsel in its Financial Services Regulatory & Compliance group in Washington, D.C. Bender brings to the firm deep experience with financial services regulatory matters, including a particular focus on matters before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and with credit reporting and debt collection issues.

Bender’s practice is multifaceted. She is certified by the International Association of Privacy Professional (IAPP) and focuses on privacy in the healthcare sector (HIPAA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). She also conducts risk assessments, develops remediation plans and implements training and compliance programs.

Immediately prior to joining Clark Hill, Bender was Chief Strategy Officer and General Counsel at BCA Financial Services, Inc., in Miami. She has had an extensive career in the industry with experience in private law firm practice, within the banking industry, in-house at private companies and at a key industry trade association.

“Leslie is a giant in the industry and a formidable financial services regulatory attorney with years of experience representing the industry with credit reporting and debt collection issues,” said Joann Needleman, Leader of Clark Hill’s Financial Services Regulatory & Compliance Group.  “She is multi-talented, with additional deep experience in healthcare privacy (HIPAA), financial privacy (GLBA), the California Consumer Privacy Act, risk assessment, compliance and training.  Leslie will be a great asset to both our firm and our clients.”

Bender brings more than two decades of high-level proficiency practicing before various courts and regulators, and maintains strong relationships with local, state and federal regulators in the financial services and privacy areas. She is a past president of ACA International, a 3000-member global trade association representing the credit and collections industry. 

“The timing could not be better for me to join Clark Hill. The CFPB has promised the release of its final Debt Collection Rule this month. Financial services companies will be laser focused on pivoting effectively and strategically to assure they are respecting consumers’ preferences when collecting the right amount of data from the right consumer. I look forward to the challenge of helping a wide range of companies navigate the new compliance landscape,” Bender said.  “I am pleased to be returning to private practice at this point in my career. The diversity and broad experience of the Clark Hill attorneys I have been privileged to meet is impressive and I look forward to integrating my skills to benefit the firm’s clients.” 

A 1983 graduate of the University of Notre Dame School of Law, Bender earned her undergraduate degree from Northwestern University.  She is a subject matter expert and a Certified Instructor for ACA International, the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals for over two decades, and a Steering Committee member of the Consumer Relations Consortium in Washington, D.C. for more than seven years. 

[article_ad]

About Clark Hill 

Clark Hill is an international law firm with multidisciplinary practices that draw on its attorneys’ industry and policy knowledge, deeply held shared values, and global network of premier firms and advisors to provide innovative legal solutions and client service excellence worldwide. 

As one of the largest law firms in the United States with more than 650 attorneys and professionals in 23 offices across the nation, as well as offices in Dublin and Mexico City, Clark Hill is everywhere its clients require high-quality legal representation. Please visit the firm’s website at http://www.clarkhill.com or follow the firm on Twitter @ClarkHillLaw.

ST. LOUIS, Mo. — Balto, the leader in real-time guidance for contact centers powered by AI, today announced that it closed a $10 million Series A round of funding, led by Sierra Ventures and joined by Jump Capital, OCA Ventures, Cultivation Capital and others. The funding will enable Balto to fundamentally shift the way contact centers do business, extending the reach of its real-time call guidance solution through a dramatic increase in product functionality and tripling its go-to-market team. 

“Balto is bringing the most aggressive real-time call guidance solution to market at a time when sales and customer experience agents and managers are working remote and need even greater support,” said Marc Bernstein, Balto’s CEO and founder. “Unlike other conversation intelligence solutions available today that provide only post-call analytics, Balto uses AI to guide customer conversations on-the-fly, helping agents say the right thing, at the right time. As a result, call centers see a substantial increase in conversion rates, more quickly ramp new agents, and improve customer experiences.”

Real-time Guidance Helps Agents Lead Better Conversations

The post-call speech analytics tools used by many contact centers fail to address agents’ biggest pain point: simply forgetting the right thing to say to a customer in the moment. Because post-call analytics are not equipped to deliver real-time insights and prompt action until after the call has ended, post-call solutions are unable to help the agent redirect the conversation during the call when they can be more effective. 

Balto bridges the gap between post-call data analytics and action with its real-time guidance solution that offers both scalable, in-the-moment coaching for agents and a holistic view that helps managers understand which tactics work and which do not. Balto’s Real-Time Coaching for agents listens to both sides of a conversation and visually prompts them to say the right thing at the right time, enabling agents to execute on best practices at scale. And with Balto’s Real-Time Management functionality, contact center managers can get instant insights into agent performance, win rates and trends, which enables them to update messaging and highlight important points immediately, so all agents can easily adapt to changes.   

“Fueled by demand for enterprise applications like CRM, ERP and business intelligence, and the skyrocketing growth of recordings as businesses have gone virtual, conversational intelligence is poised to become a multibillion market in the next few years. Balto is well positioned in this burgeoning market, offering something that other solutions don’t have: the ability to deliver the insights representatives need to execute key actions in real time,” said Tim Guleri, managing partner at Sierra Ventures, who also will join the Balto Board of Directors. 

Companies, such as eHealth, Empire Today and National General Insurance, using Balto are already seeing real results, including: 

• Up to a 35% increase in conversion rates
• Improving average handle time by 90 seconds 
• Speeding ramp time by getting agents up to full production 75% faster
• Understanding what’s happening on 100% of calls

About Balto

Balto is the leader in real-time guidance for contact centers. Powered by AI, Balto’s software solution evaluates both sides of a phone call and instantly delivers critical information that enables agents to perform at the highest level humanly possible. With Balto, contact centers deliver world-class customer experiences, increase conversions and decrease agent ramp time. Current customers include contact centers in sectors such as insurance, telecommunications, retail, financial services and healthcare. For more information, visit balto.ai.

In 2020, the Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC) launched its inaugural Legal Advisory Board (LAB), an exclusive membership group of outside counsel with expertise in the accounts receivable industry who have each pledged their time and resources to support the mission of the CRC. Throughout the year, the LAB served as a legal resource to the CRC and iA Innovation Council membership and assisted in fulfilling the mission of promoting forward-thinking approaches to the issues raised by regulatory policy and technology innovation in the accounts receivable industry. 

Today’s spotlight, which showcases LAB members in their own words, highlights Joann Needleman of Clark Hill PLC.

Editor’s Note: The application period for the 2021 CRC LAB is open until 10/31/2020. Learn more about the application process here.

What inspired you to become a lawyer?

Both my father and grandfather were lawyers so I guess it’s part of my DNA.

Other than the CFPB rules, what is a hot topic in legal/compliance you think industry members should be paying attention to in the next couple of months?

I think the industry will need to pay attention to supervision and enforcement, especially in the areas of credit reporting. Regardless of whether Director Kraninger remains as Director, it appears that the CFPB is going full throttle with its oversight authority over covered entities.

What has been the highlight of your career thus far and why?

Certainly being asked to be on the CFPB Consumer Advisory Board (CAB) as the first debt collection representative was humbling. I think I have had great success in matters before the CPFB. I believe the alliances I developed on the CAB were instrumental in convincing Director Cordray to remove the substantiation provisions from the Outline of Proposal for the Debt Collection Rule.

What industry behavior keeps you up at night and why?

Failure to properly invest. If the industry wants to be taken seriously, then it can’t cut corners on crucial compliance infrastructure that will have long term sustainability.

If you could give one piece of non-legal advice to the industry, what would it be?

I think that the COVID-19 pandemic finally resulted in better collaboration within the various factions of the industry. I would like to see that continue. We cannot be our own worst enemy. Collective support and a united front will only better serve this industry in the future.

About Joann Needleman

Joann is the leader of Clark Hill’s Consumer Financial Services Regulatory & Compliance group, serves as a navigator to her clients seeking advice and guidance in the complex regulatory environment facing the financial services industry. She provides counsel, consultation, and litigation services to a wide array of financial institutions, law firms, credit reporting agencies, as well as venture capital firms looking to invest in the fin-tech space. A former member of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Consumer Advisory Board, Joann has been able to provide her clients with useful strategies in order to prepare for new areas of regulatory scrutiny. Often asked by clients to quickly assess new policy statements or guidance issued by federal and state regulators, Joann is able to break down the issues and provide common-sense solutions that ensure her clients’ policies, procedures, and business operations are fully compliant with current regulatory expectations. Joann also has far-reaching litigation experience in state and federal courts, successfully defending creditors against a variety of federal consumer protection claims including but not limited to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as state statutes.

Joann is frequently quoted in American Banker and the Wall Street Journal for her insight into the CFPB. Joann is the immediate past President of the Board of Directors of the National Creditors Bar Association (NARCA). 

Joann is the host of the podcast “Credit Ecosystem to Go: Curbside Thought Leadership for Financial Services.” Listen to recent episodes here. 

[article_ad]

About the Consumer Relations Consortium

The Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC) is an organization comprised of more than 60 national companies representing the diverse ecosystem of debt collection including creditors, data/technology providers and compliance-oriented debt collectors that are larger market participants. Established in 2013, CRC is evolving the debt collection paradigm by engaging stakeholders—including consumer advocates, Federal and State regulators, academic and industry thought leaders, creditors and debt collectors—and challenging them to move beyond talking points and focus on fashioning real-world solutions that actually improve the consumer experience. CRC’s collaborative and candid approach is unique in the market.  CRC is managed by The iA Institute.

Learn more at www.crconsortium.org.

About the iA Innovation Council

The iA Innovation Council is a collaborative working group of product, tech, strategy, and operations thought leaders who envision the future of collections and map how to get there. Group members meet throughout the year to engage in substantive dialogue and whiteboard sessions with the creative thinkers behind the latest innovations for the industry, the regulators who audit and establish guardrails for new technology, and educators, entrepreneurs and innovators from outside the industry who inspire different thinking. 

Learn more at www.iainnovationcouncil.com.

We’ve seen a lot of court decisions on the interest disclosure claim over the past couple of years, but it’s always noteworthy when a Circuit Court of Appeals and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) speak on the issue. We’ve had many appellate decisions, including several out of the Second Circuit, denying almost every iteration of the interest disclosure claim that plaintiffs and their attorneys have cooked up. Examples include Taylor, DeRosa, Klobasyuk, Gissendanner, and Dow. The Seventh Circuit has generally held that so long as the Miller safe harbor language is used when appropriate, the claims fail. A recent Seventh Circuit decision—Degroot v. Client Servs.—sides with the industry in yet another meaningful way. This time, with the CFPB filing an amici brief that, in impact, sides with the debt collector.

Factual and Procedural Background

In DeGroot, the plaintiff defaulted on a debt owed to Capital One. Through the account’s lifetime, it was placed with two separate debt collection agencies. The first agency sent the plaintiff a letter that stated:

The amount of your debt is $425.86. Please keep in mind, interest and fees are no longer being added to your account. This means every dollar you pay goes towards paying off your balance.

Subsequently, the bank reassigned the account to a second collection agency—the defendant-appellee in this case—that sent the plaintiff a letter that listed the same amount due but included an itemization of the debt that stated:

• Balance Due At Charge-Off: $425.86
• Interest: $0.00
• Other Charges: $0.00
• Payments Made: $0.00
• Current Balance: $425.86

The letter also stated:

[N]o interest will be added to your account balance through the course of Client Services, Inc. collection efforts concerning your account.

The plaintiff, through counsel, filed an FDCPA class action lawsuit against the second collection agency for allegedly failing to state the amount owed in a clear and meaningful way. According to the plaintiff, the inclusion of interest and other charges in the debt itemization—even though the amounts were listed as $0.00—could mislead a consumer to think that such items can still accrue on the account. This, allegedly, is at odds with the statement that interest will not accrue while with the second agency.

The district court dismissed the lawsuit, and the plaintiff appealed.

Seventh Circuit Decision

This is a decision that is best summarized in the court’s own words.

Since the collection letter is true on its face—the debt was not accruing interest and charges and the amount accrued since charge-off was $0.00—the appellate court focused its analysis on whether the unsophisticated consumer would read the letter to imply what the plaintiff alleges. “If, and only if, we conclude that an unsophisticated consumer would make such an inference, then we move to analyze whether the inference is false or misleading.”

Poignantly, the court looks to and agrees with the CFPB’s amicus brief:

As the CFPB points out, the itemization of a debt is a record of what has already happened. It “discloses the interest or other charges that have been assessed between a date in the past (in this case, the date that the debt was charged-off) and the date of the notice.” For that reason, the Bureau argues, such a breakdown cannot be construed as forward looking and therefore misleading. We agree.

What follows is a complete rejection of the plaintiff’s argument and a rejection of conclusions from a few district courts within the Seventh Circuit’s jurisdiction:

Degroot’s insistence—apparently accepted by several district courts, see, e.g., Duarte v. Client Servs., Inc., No. 18 C 01227, 2019 WL 1425734 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2019)—that the inclusion of a zero balance for interest and fees naturally implies he could incur future interest or other charges if he did not settle the debt is unpersuasive. In line with Koehn, Degroot’s mere raising of an open question about future assessment of other charges with a speculative answer does not make the breakdown misleading.

The court then concludes:

That interest and fees are no longer being added to one’s account does not guarantee that they never will be, because there is no way—unless the addition is a legal or factual impossibility—to know what may happen in the future. That is why a statement in a dunning letter that relates only to the present reality and is completely silent as to the future generally does not run afoul of the FDCPA. While dunning letters certainly cannot explicitly suggest that certain outcomes may occur when they are impossible,  they need not guarantee the future. For that reason, the itemized breakdown here, which makes no comment whatsoever about the future and does not make an explicit suggestion about future outcomes, does not violate the FDCPA.

(Internal citations omitted.) The court reiterates this conclusion for the sister claim in this suit, which alleges that the interest disclosure in the letter was misleading or confusing.

[article_ad]

insideARM Perspective

What a decision! It goes a long way to show that a plaintiff’s claim (oftentimes dreamed up by plaintiff’s counsel) has gone too far when even the CFPB sides with the debt collector. To view more info about this and other decisions—such as who was the plaintiff’s counsel, which judges issued the ruling, and other court decisions that have ruled similarly—iA Case Law Tracker subscribers can click here. Not a CLT subscriber? Try it for free or subscribe here. 

PORT SAINT LUCIE, Fla. — Branding Arc announces the donation of marketing support aimed at increasing awareness for Stop Abuse. This contribution will help reach child sexual abuse victims who have been silenced during stay-at-home orders resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. 

The pandemic and subsequent school closures have kept children away from teachers and school personnel who often assist victims in identifying and reporting abuse. According to Child Welfare Information Gateway, 67% of substantiated child abuse or neglect reports come from victim-serving professionals and 19% of these reports come from education personnel in the U.S. Child welfare agencies in some cities across the U.S. are reporting an over 50% decline in reports of abuse during the spring of 2020 compared with the same time period in 2019. The Stop Abuse program and website is a valuable resource for victims and advocates to access when they may be unable to reach out to someone directly.

In addition to providing in-kind website management, optimization, and hosting services, Branding Arc’s President, Adam Parks, believes in the mission of this organization and the critical education they provide. “During this time of need, this is one small way we can help make this crisis a priority,” says Mr. Parks. Adam met Regina Marscheider, Executive Director of Stop Abuse, in 2016 and was immediately intrigued by “Simon Says Just Tell,” a nationally acclaimed sexual abuse prevention education program she developed for elementary school children. The show has been performed to hundreds of thousands of children throughout the United States and Canada, prevented thousands of cases of abuse, and has resulted in the arrest and incarceration of over 158 child molesters in Virginia, alone.

The drop in reported cases this year is alarming and increases the need to promote Stop Abuse and its program. According to the CDC, about 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 13 boys experience child sexual abuse. 91% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone the child or child’s family knows. The CDC also reports the total lifetime economic burden of reported child sexual abuse in the United States in 2015 was estimated to be 9.3 billion. Protecting children from violence requires public expenditure on child protection and criminal justice systems to safeguard them from harm. The additional investments in prevention programs, like “Simon Says Just Tell,” help to ultimately reduce the cost to individuals and society while instructing and empowering children.

By raising public awareness through educational programs like Stop Abuse and supporting legislative action, child sexual victimization can be eliminated from our communities. The Stop Abuse website is a tool used to promote awareness and raise funds for the presentation of the Stop Abuse program in schools and other settings. Branding Arc’s donation will help support the mission of Stop Abuse and the vital role they play in supporting these victims and advocates. 

To access online educational material, learn more about “Simon Says Just Tell,” or to make a donation, please visit stopabuse.com. Your support can make the difference for a child in crisis. 

About Branding Arc

“Located in Port Saint Lucie, FL, Branding Arc is a full-service marketing agency focused on providing website, marketing, and reputation management services to the financial services and receivables management industries. Our team is comprised of communications and branding experts who listen to your vision, learn your story, and use that understanding to help position your brand, find new customers, and manage your business’ online reputation. We customize each client engagement ranging from simple one-time projects to the outsourcing of your entire marketing department, adeptly handling creative direction, graphic design, programming, and project management. By closely monitoring the marketplace and competition, we are able to identify trends and leverage opportunities that drive bottom-line revenue for our clients.”

About Stop Abuse

“Stop Abuse, powered by Spectrum Puppets, is a 501(c)3 organization formed to prevent child sexual abuse through education, detection, and referral. We produce the Emmy Award winning marionette program, ‘Simon Says Just Tell,’ that teaches children to recognize, prevent, and disclose abuse in a non-threatening environment. Thousands of cases of abuse have been prevented and hundreds of child abusers have been successfully prosecuted and imprisoned as the result of the Stop Abuse Program. For more information, visit stopabuse.com.”

Consumer attorneys are manufacturing the recent surge of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuits nationwide against creditors and debt collectors that credit report on accounts included in a consumer’s bankruptcy.   Cases in this latest wave of consumer lawsuits typically assert that prior credit reporting on accounts subsequently included in a bankruptcy violates the FCRA.

Bankruptcy Attorneys Now Pursue FCRA Claims Against Furnishers

The most recent FCRA claims begin with consumer bankruptcy attorneys conducting “post-bankruptcy discharge reviews” of their clients’ credit reports.  The attorney review of consumer credit reports focuses on pre-bankruptcy credit reporting furnished by creditors and whether updated reporting reflects the consumer’s bankruptcy discharge. Since accounts included in a bankruptcy are often coded by furnishers as past due (or similar), many of these recent FCRA claims assert that an account is no longer past due after a bankruptcy discharge and thus the pre-bankruptcy credit bureau reporting is now inaccurate.   

An Alarming New Trend

While most of the recent spate of FCRA cases assert that a furnisher failed to reflect that an account was included in a bankruptcy, some new cases assert that the creditor failed to reflect that a debt was not included in the bankruptcy discharge.  In one recent court filing, the consumer asserted that he reaffirmed his debt and thus it was not included in his bankruptcy discharge.  Therefore, the consumer claimed the furnisher’s report that the account was included in a bankruptcy was inaccurate and violated the FCRA. This case raises the specter of consumers “choosing” which debts to include — and exclude — from a bankruptcy filing and holding furnishers responsible under the FCRA for knowing and accurately reporting the consumer’s choices, regardless of the legal impact of a bankruptcy discharge on all indebtedness of the consumer.   

[article_ad]

How to Correctly Credit Report an Account Included in Bankruptcy

Court traditionally hold that the FCRA does not prohibit the accurate credit reporting of debts that were delinquent during the pendency of a bankruptcy action — even after those debts have been discharged — so long as the bankruptcy discharge is also reported.  Further, the CDIA manual provides specific guidance and codes for reporting delinquent and bankrupt accounts.  Many furnishers, however, choose to delete the credit bureau tradeline on accounts included in bankruptcy rather than risk an FCRA lawsuit for reporting the information inaccurately.   

For more information on how to correctly credit report an account included in bankruptcy, please see this article. 

Avoid and Defeat Post-Bankruptcy FCRA Claims

Creditors and other furnishers that defend against FCRA claims often focus on the damages the consumer alleged suffered due to inaccurate credit reporting.  A consumer in bankruptcy would logically have difficulty establishing any damages from purported inaccurate credit reporting because the bankruptcy filing itself would damage the consumer’s credit for many years.  A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision agreed with this sound logic and affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants improperly reported to the CRAs accounts included in bankruptcy, writing:

Plaintiffs here do not make any allegations about how the alleged misstatements in their credit reports would affect any transaction they tried to enter or plan to try to enter—and it is not obvious that they would, given that Plaintiffs’ bankruptcies themselves cause them to have lower credit scores with or without the alleged misstatements. They have therefore said nothing that would distinguish the alleged misstatements here from the inaccurate zip code example discussed by the Supreme Court in Spokeo. Indeed, Plaintiffs have not alleged that they tried to enter any financial transaction for which their credit reports or scores were viewed at all, or that they plan to imminently do so, let alone that the alleged inaccuracies in their credit reports would make a difference to such a transaction. Unlike the plaintiff in Spokeo, Plaintiffs did not say anything about what kind of harm they were concerned about, other than making broad generalizations about how lower FICO scores can impact lending decisions generally—without any specific allegation that lower FICO scores impact lending decisions regarding individuals who are already in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Without any allegation of the credit report harming Plaintiffs’ ability to enter a transaction with a third party in the past or imminent future, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a concrete injury for standing. 

Jaras v. Equifax No. 17-15201 (9th Cir. 2019).

However, please note that this ruling by the Ninth Circuit in Jaras is contrary to the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pedro, which established a different standard for determining whether a Plaintiff has suffered an injury sufficient to state a claim for relief: 

Pedro alleged an injury that is both concrete and particular. Pedro alleged a concrete injury because the harm caused by the alleged violation of the Act— the reporting of inaccurate information about Pedro’s credit to a credit monitoring service—has a close relationship to the harm caused by the publication of defamatory information, which has long provided the basis for a lawsuit in English and American courts. See, e.g., Restatement (First) of Torts § 569 cmt. g (Am. Law Inst. 1938) (explaining that it is “actionable per se” to publish a false statement that another has “refus[ed] to pay his debts”). Pedro also alleged a concrete injury because she alleged that she “lost time … attempting to resolve the credit inaccuracies.” Cf. Palm Beach Golf Center-Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, D.D.S., P.A., 781 F.3d 1245, 1252– 53 (11th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the occupation of a fax machine during the transmission of an unwanted fax constituted a concrete injury). And Pedro’s alleged injuries affected her personally. Indeed, her credit score dropped 100 points as a result of the challenged conduct. Because Pedro alleged that she suffered an injury in fact, she has standing to pursue her complaint. 

Pedro v. Equifax 868 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2017).

Conclusion

The reporting of accounts included in bankruptcy is a practice that is under scrutiny and attack by the consumer bar. Furnishers must consult with an attorney to review and update credit reporting policies as they relate to bankrupt accounts. Further, any creditor, debt collector or other furnisher named as a Defendant in a case involving allegations of improper reporting of accounts in bankruptcy should carefully review with counsel the recent case law which provides some defenses, including complete defenses in certain circumstances. 

Author’s Note: This article is provided only as a general discussion of legal principles and ideas. Every situation is unique and must be reviewed by a licensed attorney to determine the appropriate application of the law to any particular fact scenario.  If you have a legal question, consult with an attorney. The reader of this publication will not rely upon anything herein as legal advice and will not substitute anything contained herein for obtaining legal advice from an attorney.  No attorney-client relationship is formed by the publication or reading of this document. Moss & Barnett assumes no liability for typographical or other errors contained herein or for changes in the law affecting anything discussed herein. 

DENVER, Colo. — Harvest Strategy Group, Inc. (Harvest) is pleased to announce the addition of Inder P. Singh to its Board of Directors.  Mr. Singh previously served on the Harvest Board in 2010 and returns at a time when growth and expansion of the company is a central focus. 

Mr. Singh’s background includes extensive experience both as a corporate executive and as an entrepreneur. He served as EVP and Global CIO of Visa International and held several executive positions at Bank of America including EVP of Worldwide Technology and head of Payments and Retail Expansion in Asia. He was co-founder, president, CEO and Chairman of EXLServices, (EXLS on NASDAQ) as well as co-founder of Quintant, which was sold to I Gate (IGTE on NASDAQ) and as COO managed LifeLock (LOCK on NASDAQ) that was subsequently purchased by Symantec.  Mr. Singh serves on the boards of other start-up companies. “In addition to being a supporter of Harvest over the years, Inder has a proven track record in driving exceptional results. We are excited and honored to have him serve on the board.” said Harvest President Brad McCurnin.

Mr. Singh joins the Harvest board that already has an impressive depth.  Just last June Lewis Kling and Leslie Hirsch also joined the board. Mr. Kling was CEO of Flowserve, a Fortune 500 company with 18,000 employees in 55 countries. He also currently serves on the Board of several non-profit organizations. Mr. Hirsch is currently President & CEO of St. Peters Healthcare System out of New Brunswick, New Jersey. Mr. Hirsch became CEO of Touro Infirmary one week before New Orleans took a direct hit from hurricane Katrina in August 2005. He received a great deal of national attention for providing medical care, under extreme circumstances, that was instrumental in helping the community minimize what could have been catastrophic consequences. Both Mr. Kling and Mr. Hirsch have received numerous awards and honors.

“The organizational changes announced today position us not only for continued growth as a leader in the accounts receivable market, but will also provide opportunities to grow in other related services and markets.” reports Martin Ravin, Executive Chairman.

About Harvest Strategy Group, Inc.

Harvest is a recognized leader in national accounts receivable management services, delivering best-in-class results for the nation’s largest banks, finance companies and credit unions. Harvest’s mission is to execute custom recovery programs on behalf of its clients to maximize revenue, while protecting their brand with proven regulatory compliance and vendor oversight processes. Harvest’s leading recovery performance is fueled by ProScoreTM, its proprietary portfolio scoring and segmentation model. For more information, visit www.harveststrategygroup.com or call (303) 531-0631.

Editor’s note: This podcast episode is provided through an exclusive industry partnership between insideARM and Clark Hill, PLC. Podcast host Joann Needleman, a leading financial services attorney and member of the iA Legal Advisory Board, provides bite-sized hot topics in the consumer finance space. ClarkHIll content—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

Show Notes: Sheila Monroe, CEO of TrueAccord Corp, stops by the next episode of Clark Hill’s Credit Eco To Go to talk about the credit ecosystem from the consumer perspective. TrueAccord has been a disrupter in the accounts receivable management industry. Instead of viewing consumers as individual debtors, their approach has been to guide consumers through the life cycle in part by tailoring technology to customize outcomes as well as to build goodwill so consumers will ultimately succeed financially beyond the payment of a debt. 

DISCLAIMER – No information contained in this Podcast or on this Website shall constitute financial, investment, legal and/or other professional advice and that no professional relationship of any kind is created between you and podcast host, the guests, or Clark Hill PLC, or insideARM. You are urged to speak with your financial, investment, or legal advisors before making any investment or legal decisions.

[article_ad]

Funk Game Loop by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3787-funk-game-loopLicense: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Back in June, Washington State’s Department of Licensing Collection Agency Board (Board) enacted an emergency rule waiving branch office licensing requirements for collection agency employees who transitioned to work from home in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. On Friday, with the emergency rule’s expiration date slowly approaching, the Board extended the emergency rule by a 3-2 vote. The emergency rule is now in effect until February 17, 2021, while the Board works on a permanent rule.

The meeting agenda can be found here. The recording of the meeting can be found here.