MIAMI, FL – The law firm of Pollack & Rosen, P.A., is proud to announce that Gregory Straub has joined the firm as Executive Vice President.

Greg has been involved with the credit and collection industry for over 30 years, having held many executive level positions with top performing employers.

Prior to Pollack & Rosen, Greg was President and CEO of Persolve Legal Group, LLP, a California based debt purchaser.

Greg is also an attorney and President of Elmbrook Law, a Wisconsin-based creditors rights law firm.

Greg is a well-known authority in the field of receivables management and has developed a significant understanding of inventory management, performance, and compliance processes.

Greg earned his law degree in 1990 from Creighton University Law School, Omaha, Nebraska, and a BA in psychology from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

President Joseph Rosen said “we are excited that Greg has joined the firm. I am confident that he will contribute at a high level by bringing a multitude of experience and industry knowledge to the table, which will benefit the firm and the clients we serve.”

Greg will play a major role in the organization by providing structural insight and participating with Gateway Portfolio Services as a network law firm in Wisconsin and California.

About Pollack & Rosen, P.A.

Headquartered in Miami since 1995, the firm is well positioned as an experienced and compliant partner dedicated to providing credit originators across the financial industry with exceptional Receivables Management expertise, along with superior Litigation Strategies for its clients.

Greg can be reached directly at (305) 448 0006 x294 or via email at GSTRAUB@POLLACKROSEN.COM.

The CFPB filed a proposed stipulated judgment and order—which will take effect if approved by the federal district court—including $2.66 billion for consumer redress and $64 million in civil penalties. The companies neither admitted nor denied the CFPB’s factual allegations, but they agreed to the settlement and stipulated to the entry of an order that will ban them from engaging in any activities relating to the telemarketing of credit repair services for ten years.

Case Summary:

In May 2019, the CFPB initially sued six associated companies for allegedly violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against deceptive practices and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). Among other things, the Bureau alleged that the companies’ practice of billing clients in advance for credit repair services violated the TSR’s prohibition on charging fees “for telemarketed credit repair unless it has been six months since the company achieved the promised results.” On March 10, 2023, the district court granted partial summary judgment on TSR liability in the Bureau’s favor. Following that ruling, according to the Bureau, the companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and closed the vast majority of their business. On August 28, 2023, the parties filed a proposed stipulated final judgment to resolve the Bureau’s claims.

In order to resolve the case, the companies agreed to the following remedial measures as outlined in the consent order, which still needs court approval:

• The companies are enjoined for a period of ten years against direct or indirect participation in telemarketing of credit repair services, or offering any credit repair services that are advertised, promoted, or sold through telemarketing.
• The companies will provide notice of the settlement to affected consumers.
• The companies will be ordered to pay $2.66 billion for consumer redress.
• The court will impose more than $64 million in civil money penalties against two of the companies.

Resources:

You can review all of the relevant court filings and press releases at the CFPB’s Enforcement page.

Proposed Stipulated Judgment and Order

CFPB’s Amended Complaint

CFPB Press Release

In Guthrie v. PHH Mortgage, Case No. 22-1248 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2023) an Appellate court concluded that the mere fact a business’ call center agent told a consumer an “autodialer” was used to make a call was not sufficient to win a TCPA case.

The Defendant had allegedly placed collection calls to the Plaintiff without express consent using an autodialer. The Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that–after Facebook–its system could not be treated as an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS).

The Plaintiff failed to gather evidence regarding the capabilities of the dialer–most importantly, whether it could store or produce numbers using a Random Or Sequential Number Generator (ROSNG)–and, instead, opposed the motion only with a statement from a rep that the calls had been made by an autodialer.

Noting that not every autodialer is an ATDS the Appellate Court held the lower court correctly granted judgment to the defense:

“Guthrie’s sole evidence that PHH used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact him comes from his own testimony, in which he states that two callers from PHH told him they used an “auto dialer” to reach him. However, in response, a PHH representative testified that “PHH never used a random or sequential number generator to generate and then dial a telephone number when calling Plaintiff or any other individual in connection with the Loan.” J.A. 1638. And the evidence offered by Guthrie failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that references to “auto dialer” referred to an “automatic telephone dialing system.” Guthrie has provided no evidence that PHH used an “automatic telephone dialing system” as defined in the TCPA. So, even construing the evidence in his favor, a reasonable jury could not conclude that PHH violated the TCPA. Thus, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment on this claim.”

Now it is important to note that PHH’s evidence only looked at using a ROSNG to “generate and then dial” a phone number–but that is NOT the test. Again the test is whether a number is STORED or produced using an ROSNG. PHH touched on production but not on storage. So the Court easily could have reversed on this ground.

But I think the Court was ultimately correct here because it was Plaintiff’s burden to prove ATDS usage, not vice versa. Even though PHH’s showing was insufficient to win it did not have the burden of proof. And since Plaintiff could not demonstrate the functionalities of the system–he loses.

This might be the best case to date on the impact of representative admissions regarding dialer usage. Keep it in mind!

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that because of the timing of a filing in a collection action against a student loan borrower, his claim that debt collectors violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was not time-barred, reversing the lower court’s dismissal. 

In Brown v. Transworld Systems, Inc., the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court’s dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of a lawsuit in which  Brown, a student loan borrower who had received a bankruptcy discharge, alleged that the collectors’ attempts to collect discharged debts violated the FDCPA.  In pertinent part, the panel held that as long as the date of the action is easy to determine, the FDCPA one-year statute of limitations begins to run when a collection attorney takes the last action that could independently violate the statute.  The panel also held that the determination of whether a lawyer’s conduct or communications made during a collection lawsuit violates the FDCPA is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires a case-by-case examination.

From 2003 to 2007, Brown took out ten student loans.  The purchaser of the loans hired Transworld System, Inc. to collect on the defaulted loans and Transworld subsequently filed a series of collection lawsuits in state court on behalf of the purchaser.  In support of these collection efforts, the collector filed two separate affidavits purporting to establish the purchaser’s ownership of the debts, with the second affidavit intended to replace the first affidavit after it was questioned by Brown in his summary judgment motion. The state court ruled that the second affidavit declaring that the purchaser owned the underlying student loan debts was hearsay and excluded it.  Because the purchaser could not prove its ownership of the debt, the state court granted summary judgment in favor of Brown.

On April 6, 2020, Brown filed a putative FDCPA class action in state court alleging that defendants filed “a knowingly meritless debt collection lawsuit.”  The lawsuit was removed to a Washington federal district court which dismissed the action, concluding that the FDCPA claim was time-barred “because more than one year had elapsed between when Defendants served Brown with their debt collection suit and when Brown filed his FDCPA claim.”  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the dismissal of the FDCPA claims based on the running of the statute of limitations.

The Ninth Circuit panel confirmed that there is no continuing violation doctrine in the FDCPA context, although a plaintiff can still sue for discrete FDCPA violations.  For consumer debt collection lawsuits, to determine whether there has been an independent violation of the FDCPA, which triggers a new statute of limitations period, the panel held that a court must consider (1) the debt collector’s last opportunity to comply with the FDCPA and (2) whether the date of the alleged violation is easily ascertainable.  The Ninth Circuit panel made clear that the debtor must allege “specific actions taken by the debt-collector that show more than another attempt to argue that a violation arising from the filing of a debt-collection suit continues as long as the suit remains pending.”  The panel reasoned that “to plausibly allege that a litigation act is a violation of the FDCPA, the debtor must aver sufficient facts to show that the debt collector’s act is a new violation of the FDCPA.”  (emphasis provided.)  The panel drew a distinction between litigating a case and committing independent FDCPA violations in the course of that litigation.

The panel held that the debtor had plausibly alleged an independent violation of the FDCPA during the litigation that fell within the one-year limitations period—submitting a second affidavit in the litigation to prove ownership of the debt.  According to the panel, “[b]y filing a new affidavit that attempted to show that the [purchaser] owned the debts, Defendants did more than ‘reaffirm’ the original complaint.  Rather, they presented a new basis—not contained in the complaint—to show that the [purchaser] owned the debts.”  By ceasing to rely on the first affidavit and moving forward with the second one, the panel found that a discrete event occurred that created a “last opportunity to comply” with the FDCPA.  Further, the filing date of the affidavit was easily ascertainable.  Accordingly, given that the filing of the affidavit constituted a discrete violation, Brown’s FDCPA claim based on the affidavit was not barred by the FDCPA statute of limitations.

Importantly, in reaching its decision, the panel also considered the distinction between service and filing.  Rejecting Tenth Circuit precedent, the panel held, 2 to 1, that when service occurs before filing, filing can constitute an independent violation of the FDCPA, reasoning that service is not a debt collector’s “last opportunity to comply” with many FDCPA prohibitions.  In the majority’s view, because filing requires an additional act that can cause new harm to the debtor, filing is the debt collector’s last opportunity to comply.  Therefore, “while service alone can constitute an FDCPA violation, the final step of filing presents a ‘last opportunity’ to comply with the FDCPA when the alleged violation is the bringing of a knowingly meritless lawsuit.” 

The majority concluded that service and filing can constitute separate FDCPA violations, each with its own one year statute of limitations.  Accordingly, the majority upheld Brown’s claim that the debt collector committed an independent FDCPA violation when it allegedly filed a knowingly meritless collection lawsuit.  (Concurring in the judgment, the other member of the panel wrote that this was an “unnecessary conclusion and failed to anticipate the intricacies” that could arise in future cases.)

Notably, while concluding that Brown had sufficiently “alleged a violation” in its reversal, the Ninth Circuit panel emphasized that it did not address the actual merits of his FDCPA claims.  This ruling highlights that ongoing collection litigation activity may, by itself, trigger independent violations of the FDCPA that can renew the statute of limitations under the FDCPA and extend well beyond the date a collection lawsuit is filed.

STERLING, Ill. — VeriFacts, a leading data provider for the financial services industry, showed their support for their local Sauk Valley, Illinois community as well as active duty military this July. The team distributed Minor League Baseball tickets to the community at no cost to attend a baseball game themed around local Sauk Valley area businesses, thereby supporting local baseball and local businesses at once. The event was a hit, providing not just support for the community but also a team-building outing for VeriFacts employees and their families. 

Also in July, VeriFacts held a Dessert Auction to celebrate “Christmas in July” and raise funds to begin preparations for military care packages that will be sent to active-duty military during the holidays. 

Baseball for Business – Sauk Valley Area

“We always try to find creative ways to stay engaged in supporting our local community. We’re a more rural area so our local businesses are very important to the local economy. This was a fun way to have a good time out of the office and raise awareness for our local minor league baseball team as well as businesses in the area that deserve our patronage and support,” commented Stephanie Clark, CEO at VeriFacts. 

Dessert Auction for Military Care Packages

As part of their holiday giving, VeriFacts creates care packages for military or long-term hospital patients to receive while they are away from home during the holiday season. This year, they are preparing funds to purchase care package items that will be gathered to send to US soldiers stationed overseas during the holiday season. The team will begin to gather the items over the next couple of months to have plenty of time to pack and ship the packages to their destinations. 

Showing Hometown Spirit & Support

The spirit of VeriFacts is deeply rooted in caring for the community where its leadership and employees are planted and actively expressing gratitude for the opportunity to build and grow careers in the local area. VeriFacts is headquartered in a farming area of Illinois, west of Chicago. The team works in-office and resides in the local surrounding areas. They believe in empowering their employees and fellow citizens to continue to thrive where they are and support their families and communities despite changing national economic conditions or other circumstantial challenges that rural areas commonly face. 

About VeriFacts

VeriFacts, LLC is the top employment location and verification service for the receivables management industry. Having been in business for over 30 years, they are committed to offering guaranteed customer location and employment verification services to creditors across the nation. The VeriFacts brand has become synonymous with high-quality service and a positive customer experience. Over the years, their services have expanded into residential location information, data verification, and unique data aggregation. VeriFacts is proud to be a Certified Women-Owned Business by the WBENC.

A United States district court in Kentucky recently granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a case arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In Reid v. Tenant Tracker, Inc., the plaintiff rented an apartment in Kentucky. When she moved out, the apartment complex retained her security deposit and claimed she owed an additional $330 for cleaning costs. Later, when the plaintiff obtained a copy of her consumer report she found a tradeline furnished by Tenant Tracker in connection with the alleged apartment debt. On July 14, 2022, the plaintiff sent a dispute letter to Tenant Tracker. On July 20, 2022, defendant TT Marketing responded stating: “this account has been validated by the property and referred to another collection agency.”

The plaintiff filed suit and the defendants moved to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction as their “only contacts with the [p]laintiff in Kentucky were in response to written inquiries initiated by the [p]laintiff and the responses were informational only.” Specifically, TT Marketing was engaged by the apartment manager to collect the debt and Tenant Tracker reported the debt to the national consumer reporting agencies. Both defendants and their employees were based in Texas.

The court analyzed whether Kentucky’s long-arm statute extended to the defendants under the “transacting business” prong. The plaintiff argued that TT Marketing’s purported dunning letters sent to her in connection with the debt constituted transacting business in the state. The court disagreed finding all but one of the letters sent to the plaintiff were in response to the plaintiff’s inquiries. As for the one letter not in response to the plaintiff’s inquiries, the court found that letter did not form the basis for the action as it was sent two years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiff next argued that jurisdiction was proper under FCRA because: 1) the defendants furnished credit information to the national consumer reporting agencies in an attempt to collect a debt from her in Kentucky; and 2) the credit information provided was defamatory and defendants knew the information “would be republished in Kentucky and harm [the plaintiff] in the Commonwealth.” The court disagreed. “The plaintiff fails to point to which provision of the Kentucky long-arm statue this conduct would fall under” and fails to cite to recent caselaw supporting her theory.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a debtor’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for lack of Article III standing. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that the debtor’s hiring an attorney and paying an appearance fee, as well as alleged confusion, lost sleep, and emotional distress, were not sufficient to meet the requirements of standing.

A copy of the opinion in Choice v. Kohn Law Firm, S.C. is available at:  Link to Opinion.

An individual debtor defaulted on a debt owed to a bank. The debt was assigned to a collections company. The collections company hired a law firm to initiate debt collection proceedings.

The law firm filed a lawsuit against the borrower in state court and sought a judgment in the amount of the debt as well as “statutory attorney fees.” However, the lawsuit included an affidavit from a representative of the collections company that stated the assignee collections company was not seeking additional amounts after the charge-off date, including attorney’s fees.

Due to the contradicting statements of the company and the law firm, the debtor sued the debt collectors under the FDCPA in federal court, alleging he was injured by the false, misleading, and deceptive communications from the law firm and the collections company. Specifically, the debtor’s complaint alleged that the defendant law firm filed a collection suit against him that included a prayer for attorney fees that was baseless under state law and therefore illegal under the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (2), (5) & (10).

The defendants both moved to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss concluding that the debtor did not establish Article III standing because the debtor’s alleged confusion, lost sleep, and hiring a lawyer were not considered concrete harms sufficient to meet the requirements of standing. This appeal followed.

As you may recall, to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he or she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) that the injury was caused by the defendant, and (3) that the injury would likely be redressed by the requested judicial relief.” Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615, 1618 (2020).

The debtor argued that he suffered an injury when he hired an attorney to defend him in the collection action and he lost sleep due to concern about having to pay statutory attorney’s fees.

First, the Seventh Circuit noted that its precedent clearly held that hiring an attorney and paying an appearance fee is not sufficient to establish standing. See Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 29 F.4th 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2022); Nettles v. Midland Funding LLC, 983 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2020); Brunett v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 982 F.3d 1067, 1069 (7th Cir. 2020).

The debtor further argued that he was injured because the statement about statutory attorney’s fees led him to take a detrimental step by choosing to litigate the debt and paying an appearance fee, as opposed to paying or settling the debt. However, this allegation was contradicted in the debtor’s own pleadings and information obtained during the discovery process.

Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit held that the debtor’s complaint consisted of confusion about what to do in the situation and the Seventh Circuit precedent has held that confusion leading one to hire a lawyer is insufficient to establish standing. See, e.g., Pierre, 29 F.4th at 939; Brunett, 982 F.3d at 1069.

Lastly, the debtor argued that his alleged lost sleep should constitute an injury. However, the Seventh Circuit again cited a case directly on point that previously held that a debtor’s loss of sleep is insufficient to show a concrete harm. Wadsworth v. Kross, Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 12 F.4th 665 (7th Cir. 2021).

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s judgment dismissing the debtor’s claims.

Notably, Judge David Hamilton wrote a dissenting opinion that argued this case should be distinguished from prior Seventh Circuit precedent including Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc. Specifically, Judge Hamilton opined that hiring a lawyer to defend yourself in state court in an action where the debt collector allegedly violated the FDCPA should be distinguishable from consulting a lawyer to clear up your own confusion or to file your own lawsuit.

The dissenting Judge Hamilton believed that the expense of hiring a lawyer to defend a baseless or illegal lawsuit is a concrete injury and this should support a finding of standing consistent with the recently decided Supreme Court cases in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016). In conclusion, Judge Hamilton believed that the Court should have vacated and remanded to allow the debtor to clarify his theory on injury and standing. He also noted that future plaintiffs should show how the cost of defense counsel is a concrete injury under the standard outlined in TransUnion and Spokeo. However, the majority did not have the same view.

When it comes to reaching consumers, it’s no secret that email has surpassed phone calls as the preferred method of communication. In fact, 59.5% of consumers prefer email as their first choice for communication.

But just because your business sends emails to consumers doesn’t mean that your messages make it to their inbox. And if that email never reaches the intended recipient, it doesn’t matter what that customer’s preferred method of communication may be.

There are more factors than you may realize that go into whether or not your email reaches the consumer’s inbox, so let’s look at the hidden anatomy of email and the factors that influence where your emails end up.

What’s the Difference Between Mail Servers, Mailbox Providers, ISPs, and ESPs?

Before we look at what happens when you hit “send” on that email, it’s important to identify some of the key components that operate behind the scenes to get your message from point A to point B.

• Mail Server: A mail server (also known as a mail transfer agent or MTA) is an application that receives incoming email from the sender and forwards outgoing messages for delivery to the recipient.

• Mailbox Provider: A mailbox provider provides email hosting and implements email servers to send, receive, accept, and store email for the recipient.

• ISPs: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide internet. Although ISPs can provide email services, separate ESPs are often used for business email operations—but ISPs play a major role in email delivery and landing in the recipient’s inbox.

• ESPs: Email service providers (ESPs) are a service that enables businesses to send emails and email campaigns to a list of subscribers.

How Does Email Actually Work?

When you hit the “send” button, your ESP sends the email to the recipient’s mail server through various protocols such as SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol). The delivery process involves establishing a connection with the recipient’s mail server, transferring the email content, and receiving a response indicating whether the email was accepted or rejected by the mailbox provider.

Several key factors play into whether an email gets tagged in spam or junk or filtered into “social” or “promotion” categories.

• Mailbox providers and anti-spam filters make inbox placement decisions based on a 30-day rolling history of sender reputation metrics

• Inbox placement is based on the subscriber’s interaction, regardless of your business model

• All types of emails are subject to the same filtering, regardless of content

Why are ISPs So Selective?

The ISPs are selective on what emails get accepted and which actually reach the inbox. But there are three key initiatives ISPs consider:

To protect email account owners from:

• Spam
• Scams
• Poor experience

To protect and prioritize company resources:

• Limited email engines i.e. mail servers
• Limited bandwidth
• Limited personnel or internal expertise

To continue driving revenue:

• Lower email interaction reduces ad impressions and revenue
• Too many emails can lead to account abandonment from subscribers

Best Practices to Get Your Emails Delivered

Understanding the different components of email, how it actually works, and the selective filters in place to protect consumers are all important to a successful email program. Now let’s look at several best practices to follow:

• Build and maintain a positive sender reputation with ISPs and ESPs
• Ensure good email list hygiene
• Send to actively engaged subscribers
• Maintain consistent volume and cadence (avoid spikes)
• Avoid spammy subject lines
• Develop valuable content that would engage subscribers

While many of these best practices may seem like no-brainers, achieving them can take more skill and effort than most businesses expect. Each of these contribute to email delivery rates and more importantly, deliverability to recipients’ inboxes—key drivers towards consumer engagement and your bottom line.

In remarks delivered on August 15, 2023 at a roundtable convened by the White House on protecting Americans from harmful data broker practices, CFPB Director Chopra announced that the CFPB plans to propose a rule under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to address the practices of data brokers.  In connection with Director Chopra’s announcement, the CFPB issued FAQs about its rulemaking plans.  Both Director Chopra’s remarks and the FAQs highlight the use of data collected by data brokers to feed artificial intelligence used to make decisions about consumers.

In his remarks, Director Chopra indicated that in September 2023, in advance of convening a SBREFA panel, the CFPB plans to publish an outline of proposals and alternatives under consideration for a proposed rule.  The FAQs advise small businesses interested in participating as a panelist to contact the CFPB within the next week.  Director Chopra also indicated that the CFPB plans to issue a proposed rule in 2024.

In March 2023, the CFPB issued a request for information (RFI) about business models that collect and sell consumer data, such as data brokers, data aggregators, and platforms.  While neither Director Chopra nor the FAQs clearly indicate what is meant by the term “data broker,” the CFPB used the term “data broker” in the RFI to describe businesses that “collect, aggregate, sell, resell, license, or otherwise share consumers’ personal information with other parties.”  It indicated that the term encompassed companies that act as first-party data brokers and interact directly with consumers as well as third-party data brokers with whom consumers do not have a direct relationship.  

It also included firms that specialize in preparing employment background screening reports and credit reports.  In describing the activities of data brokers, the CFPB stated that they “collect information from public and private sources for purposes including marketing and advertising, building and refining proprietary algorithms, credit and insurance underwriting, consumer-authorized data porting, fraud detection, criminal background checks, identity verification, and people search databases.”

The FAQs indicate that the CFPB received “more than 7,000 responses” to the RFI and describe some of the issues raised in response to the RFI.  Among the issues raised are the impact of “data broker harms” on protected classes and vulnerable individuals and the sharing of data in ways that consumers do not expect.

Most significantly, the CFPB suggested in the RFI that many data brokers who act as “consumer reporting agencies” under the FCRA nevertheless disclaim FCRA coverage.  The CFPB stated:

“Many companies [that sell consumer data] whose business models rely on newer technologies and novel methods purport not to be covered by the FCRA.  These companies are sometimes labeled ‘data brokers,’ ‘data aggregators,’ or ‘platforms,’ but they all share a fundamental characteristic with consumer reporting agencies—they collect and sell personal data.”

As described by Director Chopra and the FAQs, the proposals under consideration would:

• Define a data broker that sells certain data as a “consumer reporting agency” under the FCRA.  A data broker’s sale of data regarding, for example, a consumer’s payment history, income, and criminal records would generally be treated as a “consumer report” under the FCRA because it is typically used for credit, employment, and certain other determinations.
• Clarify the extent to which “credit header data” constitutes a “consumer report” under the FCRA.  Such data is personally identifying information such as a consumer’s name, address, or social security number which is held by traditional consumer reporting agencies.

MENLO PARK, Calif — As summer heat rolled in, the team at Latitude by Genesys selected a thirst-quenching nonprofit to support. Focused singularly on bringing clean and safe water to people around the world, Charity: Water is busy hydrating people year-round through the support of generous individual and corporate donors.

“This is an issue I’m interested in and Charity: Water is an organization that I personally support as well,” said Latitude Sr. Director of Business Operations, Cris Bjelajac. “What better time to turn our attention to the need for a staple like clean water than at the hottest time of year? There are still areas of the world where clean and safe water is simply not available or logistically complicated to obtain. Between travel hazards of getting to a water source and contamination hazards of unsanitary water sources, something that is an absolute necessity is still too often considered a luxury. Charity: Water has developed a transparent and efficient system of isolating the issues and providing solutions to help solve the water crisis with transparency and focus.”

Man on a mission 

Charity: Water was founded by Scott Harrison, a former New York City nightclub promoter. Per the organization’s bio, “After a decade of indulging his darkest vices as a nightclub promoter, Scott declared spiritual, moral, and emotional bankruptcy. He spent two years on a hospital ship off the coast of Liberia, saw the effects of dirty water firsthand, and came back to New York City on a mission,” says the nonprofit’s website.

World water crisis 

According to a study published by Unicef and the World Health Organization, 771 million people in the world live without clean water, equating to nearly 1 in 10 people worldwide. As the Charity: Water website notes, “The majority live in isolated rural areas and spend hours every day walking to collect water for their family. Not only does walking for water keep children out of school or take up time that parents could be using to earn money, but the water often carries diseases that can make everyone sick. But access to clean water means education, income and health—especially for women and kids.”

The Latitude Perspective

Latitude by Genesys aligns its charitable giving with causes that matter to the team. As problem-solvers and innovators themselves, the ethos of the team leans toward charitable organizations that work transparently to address critical issues through efficient problem-solving and processes that make a real difference in improving people’s daily lives.

This video explainsthe journey of a donation to Charity: Water including specific ways the international teams implement clean water projects. To learn more or join us in support of this cause, visit charitywater.org for a one-time or recurring donation.

About Latitude by Genesys 

Latitude by Genesys® is a comprehensive debt collection and recovery solution for managing all pre- and post-charge-off accounts and workflow processes. It provides collectors and agents with the tools to manage the debt collection and recovery process and provides full functionality for the collector’s or agent’s desktop and deploys as a true zero-footprint, browser-based environment. Since 1996, Latitude’s focus has been to provide the most forward-thinking, attractive solution to the business needs of different people and companies in the accounts receivable management (ARM) space. Acquired by Genesys in 2016, Latitude is continually growing, innovating, and reshaping the technology expectations and customer experiences of ARM companies and their consumers.