Surety bonds are required in most states before debt collectors can get their license. Bonding is tricky since requirements differ across state lines and state legislation is always subject to change. However, surety bonding requirements are important to understand—even if you’ve been around for years. No one is immune to claims and it’s easy to overlook small requirements. 

Issues When Getting Licensed and Bonded in A New State

It’s an issue if you need to file for a new license in another state, but you aren’t familiar with that new state’s requirements. There are a few scenarios where you’d need to get a new license. For example, you may need to get a new license in the state of California if the Debt Collection Licensing Act (SB 908) passes. This new act requires licensees to have a bond with a minimum amount of $25,000. Depending on your state, this may be much less than your current debt collector’s surety bond amount. 

In addition to your state’s bonding amount, you’ll need to stay on top of that state’s requirements when filling for a license in a new state. Any violation can result in a claim on your bond. Actions like fraud and theft are simple enough for ethical debt collectors to follow. However, more specific requirements are what can land debt collectors in hot water.

Using California again as an example, collectors must include their California license number in at least 12-point type in all written or digital communication. This is an easy rule to violate if you’re not reading the fine print and didn’t need to do this for other states. 

The best way to stay ahead of licensing and bonding issues is to keep up with legislation and see what you may be required to do in the future. That way, you give yourself time to prepare documents and get familiar with any new requirements to avoid claims. You can also let your surety agency know of  any upcoming needs in the future if you ever need to file for a new license. If your surety agency already works with bonds in multiple states, you can also work with them to get additional information on state requirements.

After familiarizing yourself with new requirements, you should also make sure your entire agency is on top of any changes. Communicate any new or updated requirements in writing and encourage them to ask questions if anything isn’t clear. Investing time to educate and prepare your team can make a difference in preventing claims and lawsuits.

Common Issues That Can Result in Surety Bond Claims

A claim can be filed on your surety bond if you violate any requirements you agreed to follow when you applied for your license. Since a claim is seperate from a lawsuit, you can expect to pay a lot, sometimes to separate entities, if someone on your team makes a mistake.

Every year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) puts out a report on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CPFB received more than 75,000 complaints in 2019. In that report they outlined the most common consumer debt collection complaints reported by consumers:

• Attempts to collect debt not owed: 45%
• Written notification about debt: 18%
• Took or threatened to take negative or legal action: 12%
• Communication tactics: 12%
• False statements or representations: 11%
• Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly: 3%

Although the above complaints aren’t a measure of surety bond claims, these are all valid reasons for someone to file a claim on your bond. As we all know, there are lots of rules in place that collectors must follow to ensure fair and ethical collection takes place.

These rules aren’t new, but you might not have known that you can get a claim on your bond. You also may not have known that you must fully pay any valid claims on your bond in addition to any fees, penalties and lawsuits you’re served.

The best way to avoid bond claims is to work with a surety agency that will advocate on your behalf from the beginning. Think back to when you got your surety bond. Did they take the time to educate you on what a surety bond is, its benefits, how the claims process works and how to avoid claims?

If you answered “no” to at least one of those questions, then it’s time to get the answers to those questions and potentially find a new surety agency. Unfortunately, some surety agencies may not have your best interests in mind. They may not take the time to educate you on the regulations you have to follow and guarantees you’re agreeing to from the start.

On top of that, not all surety agencies will advocate for you if a claim is filed. This may be due to a lack of expertise to understand the claims process or a lack of staff to work on claims. Validating a claim can add lots of time and stress to your plate along with unnecessary costs if a claim turns out to be invalid.

Understanding the laws in all jurisdictions you work in, knowing the specific terms of your surety bond and working with a professional surety agency with your best interests in mind are the main ways you can steer clear of bonding issues and claims.

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

Really quick one for you.

TCPAWorld is so topsy-turvey that it is good to level set and remind ourselves of some basics once in a while.

Here’s some bedrock—debt collectors can call numbers supplied by the consumer to an original creditor as part of a credit transaction. The consent flows “downhill” in that instance, automatically. That’s been the case since 2009, but here’s a ruling from yesterday that says it again: Amadasun v. DataSearch, Inc., (W.D. Tx. October 6, 2020).

Things can get dicey where the consumer switches number or the collector doesn’t have access to the original data supplied to the creditor, so watch out if that’s the case.

insideARM Perspective

To provide some color on the Amadasun case, it was brought by a pro se plaintiff in Texas. Below is the summary of the decision from the iA Case Law Tracker, which provides detailed, crisp summaries of all industry-related court decisions:

Consumer alleged—among other things—that defendant placed multiple calls after consent was revoked, left voicemails without a mini-Miranda, failed to send the validation notice, attempted to collect a debt not authorized by a contract, and engaged in false or misleading conduct. Defendant moved for summary judgment and court granted. Court found consumer provided little evidence that disputed the evidence offered by defendant. Court found that none of the alleged conduct rose to the level of unfair or unconscionable and there was no showing of harassment or abuse because defendant’s call log showed that it only placed one call a day, at reasonable hours, usually several days apart from any other call. Court held consumer’s state law claim failed on the same grounds as the FDCPA claims. Consumer’s TCPA claim fails because defendant’s evidence that it had consumer’s consent to call—which consumer provided to the creditor and passed to defendant—went uncontroverted.

Imagine reading that rather than an 11-page-long court decision! This is how the iA Case Law Tracker helps you become an industry case law pro in less time than it takes to get your morning coffee. You can sign up for a free trial here.

Back to Amadasun. To quote the court’s decision:

DataSearch offers uncontroverted summary-judgment evidence that it had Plaintiff’s consent to call him on his cellular phone because it called the number provided by the original creditor, which was provided by Plaintiff. . . DataSearch asserts that Plaintiff never revoked his consent, and thus his claim fails as a matter of law. Plaintiff provides no controverting evidence to create a material fact issue. 

Looks like this decision came down the way it did because plaintiff did not grasp the rules of civil procedure, which require a party to respond to allegations and/or defenses (or else they are deemed waived). Either way, it never hurts to have a court decide that consent passed from a creditor to a debt collector.

[article_ad]

For those who were holding their breath until they could restart collecting debts in Washington, DC, it appears they’ll have to hold it a little longer. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Washington, DC issued a stringent blanket ban on collections within its jurisdiction to last until 60 days after the emergency order is lifted. That emergency order has now been extended to last through December 31, 2020.

The initial collection ban order went into effect in April. Back in June, Washington, DC entered into “Phase Two” of its reopening plan.  While the plan allows the pilot reopening of places such as entertainment venues, it very clearly states that several public health and emergency orders—including the prohibition on collections—are extended through the end of the year. Of note, the prohibitions would go even longer, as the orders state that the restrictions shall be in place until 60 days after the emergency orders are lifted. 

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

In its continuing actions to implement the TRACED Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to address Section 8 of the statute. Therein, Congress directed the FCC to “ensure that any exemption [under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA] granted under sections 227(b)(2)(B) or (C) [of the TCPA]allowing callers to make artificial voice, prerecorded voice, or autodialed calls without consent include certain conditions.” More specifically, Section 8  requires that “any such exemption contain requirements with respect to: “(i) the classes of parties that may make such calls; (ii) the classes of parties that may be called; and (iii) the number of such calls that a calling party may make to a particular called party.”

The FCC, not later than December 30, 2020, must prescribe new or amend existing regulations to satisfy these requirements. If the exemption already meets the requirements, no new or amended regulations need be adopted.

Pursuant to this legislative directive, the FCC’s NPRM seeks comment on whether nine (9) specific exemptions need to be amended to satisfy Section 8. Those exemptions are:

1. Non-commercial calls to a residence
2. Commercial calls to a residence that do not constitute telemarketing
3. Tax-exempt non-profit calls to a residence
4. HIPPA- related calls to a residence
5. Package-delivery-related calls to a wireless number
6. Financial-institution calls to a wireless number
7. Health-care related calls to a wireless number
8. Inmate calling service calls to a wireless number
9. Cellular carrier calls to their own subscribers

[article_ad]

Exemptions 5-8 above were adopted by FCC Order and are not in the FCC’s rules. The NPRM proposes to codify them in the rules.

The NPRM separately sets forth each exemption as it currently exists in terms of scope and applicability. In then seeks comment on how and to what extent it might need to be amended to meet the requirements of Section 8 of the TRACED Act.

For example, with respect to non-commercial calls to a residence, the NPRM notes:

“This exemption does not appear to specify the ‘classes of parties that may make’ such calls. The Commission has indicated, for example, that the exemption includes calls conducting research, market surveys, political polling, or similar activities. The exemption does appear to specify the ‘classes of parties that may be called’ because the exemption applies only to residential telephone lines. And the exemption does not appear to limit the number of calls a calling party may make to a called party. The Commission has not limited the number of calls a calling party may make pursuant to this exemption, nor do the Commission’s rules require a caller to provide any means for a called party to opt out of such exempted calls. We seek comment on these views and whether the exemption remains in the public interest.”

Comments on the NPRM will be due fifteen (15) days after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register; reply comments will be due twenty-five days after publication in the Federal Register. The relatively short filing period is a result of the Congressional mandate to prescribe rules by December 30, 2020.

It would behoove callers who rely on any of these existing exemptions to review the NPRM closely and consider participating in the proceeding. Some of the exemptions appear from the NPRM to already include requirements of Section 8 (e.g., 6-8) and the NPRM itself observes “appear to satisfy” that Section.

In any case, however, modifications or limitations that the FCC might impose as a result of the implementation of Section 8 could impact current business practices.

TCPAWorld Recommendation: pay attention and do not take anything for granted at this stage.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. —DCM Services, LLC (DCMS) the industry leader in estate and specialty account recovery solutions, announced the promotion of Tiffany Jansen to Senior Vice President, Business Development.  

Jansen, who most recently served as Vice President of Executive Account Management, will now also oversee sales and marketing strategies for DCMS. 

“Tiffany has been an invaluable member of the DCMS team over the last 17 years, said Tim Bauer, DCMS Chief Executive Officer. “Her involvement in our ongoing growth and company initiatives has contributed to our overall success. We are excited to continue our growth into additional markets under Tiffany’s leadership.” 

Jansen joined the organization in 2003 and has held various roles within both Operations and Business Development. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. 

About DCM Services

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

Editor’s Note: This article previously appeared on the Ontario Systems Blog and is republished here with permission.

Of any year in recent memory, 2020 has been the most turbulent and unsettling. COVID-19, civil unrest, and natural disasters are taking a heavy toll emotionally and financially.

For third-party collectors, showing empathy for consumers is a moral and business imperative. So is communicating compliantly to protect their rights. But the compliance piece is becoming more of a challenge. Between the current state of affairs in the U.S. and the forthcoming release of the final Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules, it’s worth revisiting how and when you communicate with consumers.

I recently sat down with Wendy Badger, chief compliance and ethics attorney and Special Compliance Of Counsel for Ovaile Law Group. Wendy and I discussed the mailbox rule, the coming CFPB final rules, and what it all means for collection agencies. Here are some of the highlights of our discussion.

[article_ad]

Why Third-Party Collectors Can No Longer Count on the Mailbox Rule

Debt collectors have relied on the mailbox rule for decades. It’s a presumption that when a letter is properly addressed, includes the proper postage, and is mailed First Class, it will be delivered to the addressee within three days.

The mailbox rule is critically important because many of the disclosures debt collectors must provide to consumers have very specific time constraints around them. For example, the validation period begins as soon as a consumer receives their validation notice in the mail.

Today, the mailbox rule is being chipped away by the courts. This shifting legal landscape—coupled with hurricanes, wildfires, and destructive acts that are disrupting postal delivery (mail being lost, mail being tossed)—has rendered the mailbox rule a rebuttable presumption.

For collectors, this changes everything.

Inbound and Outbound Effects: An ARM Compliance Minefield

The imminent demise of the mailbox rule will affect every aspect of your collection process—and, by extension, your policies, procedures, and workflows.

Outbound

If collectors rely on the mailbox rule, they run the risk of miscalculating the start of the validation period, making overshadowing a distinct possibility. As Wendy asked during our discussion, “What do collectors know, and when do they know it?” When is the next collection letter teed up and sent out? When are phone calls being made?

Post-dated payment notices pose an even trickier problem, as they must be provided (i.e., placed in the consumer’s possession) no fewer than three days and no more than 10 days before a consumer’s prearranged payment is due to post. If collectors can’t rely on the presumption of delivery, it’s going to be tough to hit that target window to avoid violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Inbound

When consumers mail disputes, requests for verification of a debt, requests to cease communication, and debt payments, delivery delays can complicate the collections process (postmarks notwithstanding). If you’re giving consumers the benefit of the doubt rather than immediately reporting late payments to credit bureaus, you’ll need to establish workflows around that.

5 Tips for Communicating Compliantly in an Uncertain World

How will you survive without the mailbox rule, especially as we await the CFPB’s final rules? This list of tips is a good place to start, but be sure to consult with your outside counsel to formulate a detailed plan.

1. Rethink how you calculate periods of time.

The validation period doesn’t start when you send batches to your letter vendors. You need to know when those letters hit the mail. That’s when the clock starts ticking.

The proposed CFPB rules complicate the equation by introducing the concept of not counting public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays as part of the validation period. This will extend the validation period and require adjustments on your end. The new proposed rules provide:

“For purposes of determining the end of the validation period, the debt collector may assume that a consumer receives the validation information on any date that is at least five days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays) after the debt collector provides it.”

You’ll also need to recalculate the seven-day period for postdated payment notices as referenced in the statute.

[A debt collector shall not] “Accept from any person a check or other payment instrument postdated by more than five days unless such person is notified in writing of the debt collector’s intent to deposit such check or instrument not more than ten, nor less than three, days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays) prior to such deposit.”

2. Revisit your collector training.

Focus your training on what collectors should note in the system (e.g., actual send date versus the date a letter batch was uploaded to your vendor). In any follow-up communication, vendors should be verifying that the consumer received his/her validation notice.

You should also emphasize active listening in your training. This is a crucial skill. Collectors need to understand exactly what consumers are telling them so they can take appropriate steps and time future communications appropriately.

3. Pay attention to what’s happening in various parts of the country.

Give due consideration to adverse circumstances and events that could be causing delivery delays or failures. You might decide to extend the current time frame for your validation notices for certain consumers, depending on where they live.

4. Document everything you’re doing.

Document in detail your policies, procedures, and training regarding next steps when communications fail. For example, what is your letter vendor doing to incorporate their timing into your collection process? This needs to be established now, if it isn’t already, so you and your vendor are on the same page.

5. Embrace digital communications.

Depending on snail mail to communicate with consumers will only make collections and compliance management more difficult over time. Although digital communications aren’t foolproof—delays and failures are still possible—but they offer more assurance than postal delivery, as your providers can track digital communications more easily (including undeliverable emails and emails trapped by spam filters) and in a more timely manner.

The new CFPB rules will make the move to digital channels more of an urgent need and a greater opportunity for ARM businesses. If you’re concerned about E-sign consent, it isn’t difficult to obtain. It’s not even required for initial electronic communications when validation notices are embedded; when E-Sign is required, you can obtain it by phone, IVR, or self-service web portal.

A recent report from MIT Sloan Management Review indicates a strong correlation between companies actively engaged in digital transformation and their ability to succeed in the new economy. But only 48% of the report’s survey respondents agreed that their organizations are ready to compete in the digital economy. Creditors and third-party collections agencies have much to gain by advancing and even accelerating their digital transformation strategies, especially during times of uncertainty when many organizations curtail technology investments pending clearer visibility to the future business climate. Leading firms can capitalize on industry hesitancy caused by inevitable market shifts to extend their competitive edge.

Audit and control processes are vital debt collection and account receivables management activities that, when modernized, offer immediate, measurable, and long-lasting value to stakeholders and the business. Leading ARM organizations are, therefore, elevating the transformation of outdated compliance audit and control workflows to the top of the digital transformation priority list. Here are 5 top reasons why.

1. Saves time. The most significant expense for most businesses is labor, so reducing the time required to perform routine processes maximizes staff capacity and boosts profits. Organizations that rely on spreadsheets, printed forms, and manual data management perpetuate waste and inefficiency. Digitizing audit and QA processes will not only reduce manual touchpoints and improve business efficiency but ensure that the sequence of activities, acknowledgments, and actions is codified, consistent, and compliant. 
2. Reduces risk. Risk is a persistent, multi-faceted reality of business and life. Pandemic risk was on the radar of very few in early 2020, but its impact remains a top concern today and will so well into the future. More than anything, reducing risk is dependent on agility – the ability to rapidly shift strategy, operations, and resources when necessary. Systems dependent on outdated technology and manual processes are slow, rigid, and fragile, limiting the organization’s ability to adjust when risk manifests due to human error, natural disaster, cyber-attack, or other circumstances. Digitizing business processes reduces or mitigates the impact of nearly every form of business risk. 
3. Thrills regulators. Digitized systems thrill regulators for the same reasons they excite you. Advanced design techniques and modern, cloud-based software provide on-demand access to the information regulatory auditors require to assess risk, governance, and internal controls. They also provide reports, data visualizations, granular drill-down, advanced analytics, data export, and third-party system integrations that make regulators jobs easier and demonstrates that your organization takes them and compliance seriously. 
4. Boosts employee engagement. Working with obsolete technology is frustrating, hurts morale, and ultimately productivity. This is as true for frontline personnel as for their administrative, support, and senior management counterparts. The shift to virtual compounds the challenge exponentially as spreadsheet and paper-based systems are inadequate for the distribution, acknowledgment, rebuttals, and other forms of disclosure and collaboration inherent to audit and control workflows. Audit and control workflows migrated to cloud-based platforms by itself improves the employee work experience, but also includes role-based dashboards, performance and trend reporting, agent coaching, gamification, and many other features that foster engagement and productivity.
5. Improves business results. Outdated technology is expensive to build and maintain and is a drain on IT resources. Modern platforms designed for anywhere-access to critical compliance audit and control systems empower business stakeholders with cutting-edge tools to deliver on productivity, CX, efficiency, and adherence targets, scale credit and collections operations, boost revenue growth, and strengthen the bottom line.

The Covid-19 pandemic has made 2020 an exceptional year for most businesses and, in many cases, a positive one. Leading debt collection and account receivables management organizations have capitalized on this disruptive period to expedite crucial digital transformation initiatives and ain a competitive edge.

Assess each business unit and functional area within your organization to identify and fix the weak or neglected systems, processes, and workflows that impair morale, compliance, effectiveness, and profits. Given the bright outlook for the ARM industry, doing so will position your organization to effectively serve employees, customers, regulators, and business owners as the effects of the pandemic continue to develop and long after it’s ended.

To learn more about this topic, join TouchPoint One’s webinar, on 21 October 2020 at 2.00 pm Eastern: register here.

About the Author

Nicole Weathers is Director of Client Success for TouchPoint One, the leading provider of performance optimization solutions for collections, care, support, sales, and other customer contact focused organizations. The Company’s Acuity product is a full-featured employee engagement and performance management platform that enables improved decision making, talent development, and process execution at every operational level. TouchPoint One customer contact solutions deliver the compelling benefits of gamification, balanced scorecards, employee dashboards, and advanced performance management through innovative design and complete, functional alignment with business processes and strategies.

Visit the TouchPoint One web site to learn more or to schedule a software demo. Please also follow us on Twitter @TouchPoint_One and on LinkedIn

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

A federal district court in Louisiana held this week that the TCPA is flat out unconstitutional as applied to any calls made between November 2015 and July 6, 2020.

Let me say that again. TCPA. Unconstitutional. As to all calls prior to July 6, 2020.

Still not doing it justice. A COURT JUST RULED THAT NO TCPA LAWSUITS ARE ALLOWED FOR CALLS MADE PRIOR TO JULY, 2020!

That’s the stuff.

This stunning result follows, of necessity from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Barr v AAPC, in which SCOTUS seemingly saved the TCPA after initially determining the content-based exemption for calls made to collect on government was unconstitutional. The decision is here: Biggest TCPA Ruling Ever

In AAPC the Supreme Court determined that the TCPA was unconstitutional. Full stop.

While the Supremes went on to sever the exemption that rendered the TCPA unconstitutional, that severance didn’t happen in the Creasy court’s view until July 6, 2020—the date the AAPC case was decided. So until that severance, the TCPA was fully and totally and completely unenforceable. As the court put it:

An unconstitutional statute being “as no law,” the Court may not enforce the pre-AAPC version of § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)…

[article_ad]

In essence, the Creasy court determined that AAPC cannot be applied retroactively. Calls that were made pre-AAPC were LEGAL and cannot be made illegal by a post hac action of the Supreme Court.

While Creasy makes a basic logical and chronological sort of sense, it doesn’t comport with the backward-lawyer way of thinking, which generally assumes that decisions by the Supreme Court do have a retroactive impact as clarifications of existing law. In other words, the traditional way to view AAPC is as if the Supreme Court was recognizing that the exemption had always been severable and, in fact, severed.

But Creasy looks at the mechanics. The exemption wasn’t severed—as a matter of actual objective fact—until July 6, 2020. And there is zero dispute that the TCPA was an unconstitutional little monster until that date. The Supreme Court said so.

So what does this mean for TCPA Defendants? EVERYTHING.

As Creasy preaches and practices, there is simply no jurisdiction for any district court to oversee TCPA cases for calls arising before July 6, 2020 (with maybe a chance for claims arising pre-November, 2015 if they were somehow tolled).

TCPA is dead. Again. For the first time.

But it’ll be back. Probably.

Want to keep track of industry-related litigation trends?
The iA Case Law Tracker helps you do that in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.

ROCKVILLE, Md. — The iA Institute and the Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC) are excited to announce that the application period for the 2021 Legal Advisory Board (LAB) is open. The LAB is 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. 

The purpose of the LAB is to serve as a legal resource to the CRC and iA Innovation Council membership and to assist in fulfilling the mission of promoting forward-thinking approaches to the issues raised by regulatory policy and technology innovation in the accounts receivable industry.

LAB members must be licensed, practicing attorneys as outside counsel in good standing with the state bar governing the law in the state where their practice is located. Attorneys’ applications must be supported by three CRC members in good standing, with membership approved by the CRC’s Regulatory Steering Committee. LAB members receive complimentary individual subscriptions to the iA Case Law Tracker and iA Research Assistant. 

More information is available here. Attorneys interested in LAB membership can fill out an application here. The application deadline is October 31, 2020. The CRC Steering Committee will be making final selections before the end of the year.

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.

[article_ad]

About The iA Institute

The iA institute (iA) is a media company that produces handcrafted news, events, and education for the consumer and commercial debt industry. The iA team believes that the value of your investment in our content should be undeniable, so we thoughtfully design everything we do with a focus on the details that make a difference. iA initiatives bring a range of stakeholders to the table in candid and intimate environments to inform, to collaborate, to innovate, and to make profitable connections. The iA institute, under the name insideARM LLC, is a certified woman-owned and woman-controlled business (WBE).

Learn more at www.theiainstitute.com.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — IC System, a nationally licensed collection agency headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, announced today the promotion of Karen Jonas to Senior Vice President of Field Sales. In this role, she will drive sales strategy, revenue production, and have oversight of the Field Sales team.  

Karen celebrated 25 years with IC System in August. She started as a Consumer Financial Representative and progressed from there to Lead, Supervisor, Trainer, Operations Manager, Director of the St Paul location, Vice President of Operations, and Vice President of Financial Services. In Karen’s previous role as Vice President of National Accounts, her focus and pursuit were paramount in developing IC System markets such as Government, Utility, Telecom, and Financial Services. 

“Karen possesses a wealth of experience at IC System,” said Matt Isaacson, Chief Revenue Officer at IC System. “I’m excited about her enthusiasm and allegiance to the Field Sales team, and to the company, as she moves into the SVP role.”

In her new position, Karen will maintain day-to-day business development responsibility for national verticals, including healthcare, the largest industry segment at IC System.

“Karen’s leadership has been invaluable over the years,” said John Erickson Jr., President and CEO at IC System. “And her impact on IC System has been immeasurable throughout her tenure. After learning so much from Karen’s enthusiasm and drive, IC System is looking forward to seeing how she continues to grow and innovate our business in this next chapter.” 

[article_ad]

About IC System

IC System is one of the largest receivables management companies in the United States. Founded in 1938, IC System is a privately held accounts receivable management firm in its third generation of family ownership. IC System provides customized, tailor-made debt recovery solutions for healthcare, dental, small business, government, utilities, and telecommunications industries nationwide. Follow IC System on Twitter at @icsystem or on Linkedin.