BARRIE, Canada — Dave Rae, CEO of Bill Gosling Outsourcing, is very excited to bring the planning and design to fruition for their new site in downtown Barrie, after a 20-year journey in Newmarket, Ontario. 

The new headquarters, designed to meet the requirements of a growing workforce as Bill Gosling Outsourcing continues to expand globally, was built to create a best-in-class workspace in downtown Barrie.  Featuring beautiful collaboration zones, open workspaces throughout, fitness, spa and a 3,000 square foot patio to promote collaboration and creativity.  “Our executive team all felt the importance of creating offices that would provide a great balance for work and fun in a really strong community within a block of the vibrant downtown area of Dunlop Street and the Kempenfelt Bay waterfront”, Rae said.  

“With our expanding global footprint, we needed a headquarters that could fully support our growth strategies,” offered Kenny Johnson, President of Bill Gosling Outsourcing. “Our new headquarters is the perfect combination of high tech flexibility and interpersonal collaboration. We are excited to get more involved in the community in Barrie, as well as provide career opportunities to the local workforce.”

About Bill Gosling Outsourcing

Founded in Canada in 1955, Bill Gosling Outsourcing (BGO) provides outsourcing services for clients throughout North America, India, and the UK. With the recent acquisition of MattsenKumar, an outsourcing company based in India, BGO has expanded operations into seven countries with over 5500staff worldwide. Bill Gosling’s services include Customer Service/Support, Accounts Receivable Management, Customer Sales and Acquisitions, Ecommerce, Consulting Professional Services, Technology Solutions, Risk and Fraud Operations, Business Insights and Business Process Outsourcing.  

In April 2023, the CFPB released a policy statement on abusive acts and practices (Policy) and invited comments from interested stakeholders. According to the Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC), the ambiguity and vague concepts in Policy will ultimately harm the consumers the CFPB purports to protect. In its comment, the CRC urged the CFPB to update the Policy to create greater clarity and consistency to avoid this unintended consequence.  

Legal Advisory Board members Jessica Klander of Bassford Remele, Aryeh Derman of Clark Hill, Justin Penn of Hinshaw and Culbertson, and Jedd Bellman of Orrick prepared the CRC’s June 30, 2023 comments and raised the following concerns:

[article_ad]

The Policy is too vague to be effective.

The CRC began its comment by reminding the CFPB that debt collectors are often the most sophisticated person a consumer will speak to as they try to get their financial lives back on track. Though debt collectors represent their clients, they often assist consumers directly by serving as their primary liaison to the original creditor, gathering documents on their behalf, helping process disputes and hardship applications, and offering extended payment plans, settlements, etc.

To facilitate these types of communications, debt collectors must create and implement compliant policies and procedures. Clear laws create a path for debt collectors to ensure that all (and sometimes conflicting) applicable laws are followed. When laws or rules are unclear, debt collectors cannot draw solid lines for compliance. Ambiguous laws which cannot be followed with certainty deny consumers the opportunity to speak with anyone about their debt. 

As currently written, the lack of clarity and vague concepts in the Policy will make compliance with it exceedingly difficult and therefore make communications- including those that assist consumers- likewise exceedingly difficult.

The definition of ‘Material interference’ lacks sufficient clarity. 

In his prepared remarks, Director Chopra said the Policy “explains how companies are prohibited from manipulating people by ‘materially interfere[ing],’ or in other words obscuring, important features of a product or service.” However, the examples in the Policy regarding what constitutes a “material interference” are broad and unclear. They involve “digital” and “physical” interference, including buried disclosures, undisclosed pricing or costs, and overly complicated terms. No other examples are provided.

In its comment, the CRC opined that the language in the Policy is so vague and broad that it could potentially apply to any consumer interaction. Without clarification, definition, or a safe harbor provision for good faith compliance with laws, the overbreadth of this language will necessarily create compliance uncertainty, additional litigation, and inconsistency among jurisdictions regarding its meaning. 

Ultimately, this portion of the Policy will prevent communications with consumers and prevent them from getting their financial lives back on track. Consequently, the CRC urged the CFPB to address its concerns expressly rather than vaguely, provide additional definition and clarity, and add safe harbor provisions to the Policy.  

The concept of “Unreasonable Advantage” should be tied to an objectively reasonable industry standard. 

The Policy suggests that abusive conduct occurs when one takes “unreasonable advantage” of consumers and suggests that taking “unreasonable advantage” can come in three ways:

• The consumer’s lack of understanding. 
• The inability of the consumer to protect their own interest
• Reasonable reliance by a consumer that a covered entity [debt collector] is acting in the consumer’s interest.

The Policy does not set forth objective standards debt collectors can follow. Instead, the standard is subjective and indicates:

• The consumer’s lack of understanding is sufficient to demonstrate abusive conduct, regardless of how it arose. This may be true regardless of any act or omission of the debt collector or whether that lack of understanding by the consumer was reasonable.

• There is a higher risk for abusive conduct where consumers cannot exercise meaningful choice when interacting with or choosing a particular entity. The Policy Statement does not include examples of how a consumer could have achieved a different outcome had they participated in selecting a downstream vendor.

• The definition of “reasonable reliance” is open-ended. Though the Policy provides two examples, it also mentions that “[t]here are a number of ways to establish reasonable reliance” and cautions that the scenarios provided are not exhaustive.

Though the CRC fully supports consumer financial education and the mission to empower consumers by giving them the tools to make well-informed financial decisions, the scope of what could constitute taking “unreasonable advantage” of a consumer is so subjective and uncertain that the CFPB will leave the industry, especially the numerous good actors paralyzed concerning how to communicate with consumers and stay compliant. 

In its comment, the CRC urged the CFPB to change its proposed Policy to create clear guidance and reasonable objective standards. Debt collectors engage in inbound and outbound phone calls, emails, and other communications with limited knowledge of a consumer’s financial background or competency. Without sufficiently describing the standards the CFPB desires to set forth or the specific conduct it seeks to derail, debt collectors cannot be sure what additional information or disclosures are needed when communicating with consumers. When debt collectors don’t have the guidance to create clear internal procedures, consumer communications are stifled, ultimately to the consumer’s detriment. 

The CRC’s full comment can be found here. 

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.

About the Legal Advisory Board

The Legal Advisory Board (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 LAB is limited to ten law firms and is comprised of fourteen total attorneys. The 2023 members can be found here. Throughout the year, the LAB serves as a legal resource to the CRC membership and assists in fulfilling the mission of promoting forward-thinking approaches to the issues raised by regulatory policy and technology innovation in the accounts receivable industry.

CHANDLER, Ariz — National Credit Adjusters, a Kansas-based debt buyer with branches in Arizona and Jamaica, is proud to share that we held our second annual volunteer day with ICAN, a local non-profit organization that helps support low-income families with free after school and summer day-care and educational programs, on May 19th. 

The ICAN (Imagine, Connect, Achieve, and Network) and NCA teams gathered for a fun afternoon of dodgeball, arts & crafts, playing board games, and other various outdoor activities. This collaborative effort highlights NCA’s effort to both support and shed light on the significance of supporting community organizations throughout its local communities. 

“We’ve been extremely excited and proud of the last two years’ volunteer work with ICAN. The ICAN staff is shorthanded at a 40:1 staff member to child ratio and therefore in need of our continued support. The event has been so rewarding for both the NCA volunteers and ICAN that we are considering multiple events each year going forward. Spending time with underprivileged kids has given the NCA employees a stronger connection with the local community and brought us closer as a working family. We’re all looking forward to the next event!” said Karl Krum, Director of Operations at NCA. 

The Power of Community Organizations

Community organizations such as ICAN are lifelines for individuals and families facing economic challenges. They create safe spaces where low-income families can access critical resources, engage in educational activities, and find the support they need to thrive. By offering free after-school and summer daycare programs, ICAN helps ensure that children receive proper care and education, even in financially constrained circumstances.

Education is a powerful tool that can break the cycle of poverty. ICAN recognizes this and goes beyond daycare services by providing educational programs to children from low-income families. These programs are designed to foster academic growth, encourage creativity, and develop life skills. By supporting community organizations like ICAN, we empower children with the education and resources they need to create a brighter future for themselves.

Volunteering for a Cause

National Credit Adjusters recognizes the power of collective action and the impact it can have on the lives of those in need. By participating in the second annual volunteer day with ICAN, employees and staff aim to demonstrate the importance of lending a helping hand. Volunteering not only provides immediate assistance to community organizations but also fosters a sense of empathy, unity, and purpose among the participants.

Supporting community organizations like ICAN is of utmost importance as they serve as beacons of hope for low-income families. NCA hopes that together with ICAN, we can create lasting change and build a stronger, more inclusive society for everyone in the local community and help inspire those in the global community to come together for a nice afternoon.

NCA wants to give special recognition to the following NCA volunteers for this event: Kay Watkins, Susan Young, Diana Gonzalez, Maureen Gottshall, Margarita Almeida, Mia Hernandez, Maria Kirk, Chris Butler, Chanel Waite, Karl Krum and Michael Ohlund.

About ICAN

ICAN was founded in 1991 by a concerned citizen in Chandler, AZ. Henry Salinas was a humble man who saw gang violence taking over his neighborhood and decided to do something about it. Henry’s initial investment of time and compassion to area teens has blossomed into a full-service youth center whose programs are still free to the community that Henry held so dear, and now impacts youth, teens and their families.  ICAN’s nationally-recognized out-of-school time prevention programming teaches vulnerable youth real-life skills including goal setting, positive decision-making and how to avoid the risky behaviors that are prevalent in the community ICAN serves. ICAN is unique because our programming is offered free of charge to remove the barriers that can prevent low income families from accessing needed services.

About National Credit Adjusters, LLC

National Credit Adjusters has specialized in purchasing and servicing delinquent account receivables since 2002. Their primary area of acquisition is consumer installment and online lending. NCA stays current on industry standards through ongoing research, automation, analytics, and process evaluation. National Credit Adjusters focuses on strong performance while adhering to compliance standards through constant quality training and employee development. Whether purchasing, servicing, or selling debt, NCA conducts all business with respect and fairness. For more information, visit ncaks.com.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. —  McGlinchey Stafford is pleased to announce the addition of Will Wojcik as a Member (Partner) and Cole Hodge as Associate to its Nashville office. Bolstering the firm’s prominent Litigation practice, these two attorneys are part of a larger expansion initiative within the firm and in Nashville. McGlinchey has hired 31 new attorneys, including 28 litigators, from January to the end of June, 2023.

“We are pleased to welcome Will and Cole to McGlinchey’s growing team here in Nashville,” said Shaun Ramey, managing member of the Nashville office and co-chair of the Financial Services Litigation team, where Cole practices. “Their diverse practices complement our local services well, and their in-depth knowledge of the commercial, real estate, and financial services markets will be a great asset to our clients nationwide.” In February, McGlinchey’s Nashville team moved into new space in the AT&T Building (also known as “The Batman Building”).

Will joins McGlinchey’s Enterprise Litigation and Investigations group. His practice spans litigation in the context of construction defect, real estate, contract, and zoning disputes, as well as advice and counsel on corporate, transactional, governance, and tax matters. Most recently practicing with Kay Griffin, PLLC, Will has experience prosecuting and defending claims in state, federal, and administrative courts, and has tried numerous jury and non-jury cases in Tennessee. With particular experience relating to collegiate entities, Will has also unique experience related to investigations and First Amendment issues.

In 2014, Will received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School and in 2022 was ranked as a Mid-South Super Lawyers Rising Star in Business Litigation. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Tax from New York University, with an anticipated graduation in 2024.

“Many of my clients are national in scope. Joining McGlinchey will allow me to not only expand my own practice capabilities, but will also open the door to additional services I can offer longstanding clients,” Will said. “Expanding those opportunities was a very compelling draw for me, and the fact that I genuinely liked and enjoyed speaking with everyone I met at McGlinchey was a big bonus.”

Cole joins the Financial Services Litigation team, representing banks, loan servicers, mortgagees, and auto and manufactured housing lenders, and others in various disputes in state and federal courts. With a broader background in civil litigation, he also assists clients with contract, fraud, and shareholder disputes and in arbitrations and administrative proceedings. A native of Nashville, Cole received his J.D. from The University of Tennessee College of Law in 2021 and is admitted to practice in Tennessee. 

With offices downtown and in Music Row, McGlinchey’s six Nashville-affiliated attorneys represent financial services clients in regulatory compliance and litigation, entertainment clients in intellectual property and corporate matters, real estate entities in property and ownership disputes, and many others in various commercial litigation matters. Nashville is also home to a growing number of McGlinchey’s administrative team members. 

AboutMcglinchey

McGlinchey Stafford is a premier midsized business law firm offering services in nearly 30 practice areas through a highly integrated national platform. McGlinchey attorneys leverage bold innovation, diverse talent, and leading-edge technology across our powerful network to serve clients at the local, regional, and national level. With 160 attorneys licensed in 33 states, McGlinchey operates from 17 offices nationwide. The firm currently has 18 attorneys and 9 practice areas recognized in Chambers U.S.A. 2023 and Chambers FinTech 2023, and 53 attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers, 40 attorneys recognized in various Super Lawyers rankings, 49 practice areas recognized by Best Law Firms, and was named a “Top Performer” by the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity (LCLD) since 2018. To learn more, visit www.mcglinchey.com.

IRVINE and SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., — McGlinchey Stafford is pleased to announce the addition of three litigation attorneys in California. Leslie Fales and Summer Smith join the Enterprise Litigation and Investigations practice group as Of Counsel, and Zeeshan “Zee” Iqbal has joined the Financial Services Litigation practice group as an Associate. Affiliated with McGlinchey’s Irvine office, the attorneys work from various locations in California.

“We are excited for Zee, Leslie, and Summer to add their skills to our litigation capabilities here in California,” said Brian Paino, Managing Member of the Irvine office. “All three will be invaluable assets to our firm and our clients as we continue growing in California and nationwide.”

These three litigators join Michelle McCliman and Kere Tickner, who joined McGlinchey as Members (Partners) in Irvine in early May. Summer and Leslie followed Michelle and Kere from the same previous firm. Elsewhere on the west coast in May, McGlinchey also brought on a group of three attorneys from the former Green Light Law Group based out of Seattle. McGlinchey hired 13 new attorneys firmwide in May alone.

“We are thrilled to welcome Summer and Leslie to the Enterprise Litigation and Investigations group,” said Dan Plunkett, Chair of the firm’s Enterprise Litigation and Investigations Group. “Summer and Leslie have particular experience representing clients in a variety of real estate and insurance-related matters that  will serve our nationwide clients well.”

Leslie Ann Fales will work for McGlinchey remotely in San Francisco. She has more than a decade of experience representing clients in litigation. She resolves complex, high-exposure lawsuits involving wrongful death and catastrophic injuries arising from trucking accidents, motor vehicle collisions, product defects, construction site accidents, and premises liability issues. Leslie has a particular experience defending against claims involving traumatic brain injuries (TBI). She earned her J.D. from the University of San Francisco School of Law and is admitted to practice in California.

Summer M. Smith will also work remotely for McGlinchey in San Francisco. A seasoned attorney with more than 20 years of practice, Summer helps professional and individual clients fulfill their obligations to their clients and members, with a particular focus on representing boards of directors of homeowners associations (HOAs). She also advises in breach of contract and property damage disputes, real property matters, construction defect actions, habitability claims, or common interest development cases. Summer earned her J.D. from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and is licensed to practice in California.

“We are glad to welcome Zee to our team representing financial institutions nationwide,” said Shaun Ramey, Co-Chair of the firm’s nationwide Financial Services Litigation Group. “His commitment to excellent client service will support our team in implementing strategic legal solutions on behalf of our clients.”

Zeeshan “Zee” Iqbal represents financial services companies in a variety of complex litigation matters. A dedicated litigator with experience managing all aspects of cases from inception to completion, Zee focuses his practice on mortgage lending, automobile finance, insurance defense, and creditors’ rights issues. Zee received his J.D. from Baylor Law School in 2020 and earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration from California State Polytechnic University in 2013. He is licensed to practice in California.

About McGlinchey

McGlinchey Stafford is a premier midsized business law firm offering services in nearly 30 practice areas through a highly integrated national platform. McGlinchey attorneys leverage bold innovation, diverse talent, and leading-edge technology across our powerful network to serve clients at the local, regional, and national level. With 160 attorneys licensed in 33 states, McGlinchey operates from 17 offices nationwide. The firm currently has 18 attorneys and 9 practice areas recognized in Chambers U.S.A. 2023 and Chambers FinTech 2023, and 53 attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers, 40 attorneys recognized in various Super Lawyers rankings, 49 practice areas recognized by Best Law Firms, and was named a “Top Performer” by the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity (LCLD) since 2018. To learn more, visit www.mcglinchey.com.

On July 3, the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas filed their brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the high court that the CFPB’s independent funding structure is “unprecedented and must be stopped before it spreads without limit.”

 Respondents asked the Court to affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where the appellate court found that the Bureau’s “perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure” violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause (covered by InfoBytes here and a firm article here). The 5th Circuit’s decision also vacated the agency’s Payday Lending Rule on the premise that it was promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving unconstitutional funding.

The Bureau expanded on why it believes the 5th Circuit erred in its holding in its opening brief filed with the Court in May (covered by InfoBytes here), and explained that even if there were some constitutional flaw in the statute creating the agency’s funding mechanism, the 5th Circuit should have looked for some cure to allow the remainder of the funding mechanism to stand independently instead of presuming the funding mechanism created under Section 5497(a)-(c) was entirely invalid. Vacatur of the agency’s past actions was not an appropriate remedy and is inconsistent with historical practice, the Bureau stressed.

In their brief, the respondents challenged the Bureau’s arguments, writing that the “unconstitutionality of the CFPB’s funding scheme is confirmed by both its unprecedented nature and lack of any limiting principle. Whether viewed with an eye toward the past or the future, the threat to separated powers and individual liberty is easy to see.” Disagreeing with the Bureau’s position that the Constitution gives Congress wide discretion to exempt agencies from annual appropriations and that independent funding is not uncommon for a financial regulator, the respondents stated that Congress gave up its appropriations power to the Bureau “without any temporal limit.” The respondents further took the position that the Bureau “can continue to set its own funding ‘forever’” unless both chambers agree and can persuade or override the president. Moreover, because the Federal Reserve Board is required to transfer “the amount determined by the Director to be reasonably necessary to carry out the [CFPB’s] authorities, . . . it ‘foreclose[s] the application of any meaningful judicial standard of review.’”

The respondents also argued that the Bureau’s funding structure is clearly distinguishable from other assessment-funded agencies in that these financial regulators are held to “some level of political accountability” since “they must consider the risk of losing funding if entities exit their regulatory sphere due to imprudent regulation.” Additionally, the respondents claimed that the fundamental flaws in the funding statute cannot be severed, reasoning, among other things, that courts “cannot ‘re-write Congress’s work’” and are not able to replace the Bureau’s self-funding discretion with either a specific sum or assessments from regulated parties.

With respect to the vacatur of the Payday Lending Rule and the potential for unintended consequences, the respondents urged the Court to affirm the 5th Circuit’s rejection of the rule, claiming it was unlawfully promulgated since a valid appropriation was a necessary condition to its rulemaking. “Lacking any viable legal argument, the Bureau resorts to fear-mongering about ‘significant disruption’ if all ‘the CFPB’s past actions’ are vacated,” the respondents wrote, claiming the Bureau “grossly exaggerates the effects and implications of setting aside this Rule.” 

According to the respondents, the Bureau does not claim that any harm would result from setting aside the rule, especially since no one has “reasonably relied” on the rule as it has been stayed and never went into effect. As to other rules issued by the agency, the respondents countered that Congress could “legislatively ratify” some or all of the agency’s existing rules and that only “‘timely’ claims can lead to relief” in past adjudications. Additionally, the respondents noted that many of the Bureau’s rules were issued outside the six-year limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). This includes a substantial portion of its rules related to mortgage-related disclosure. Even for challenges filed within the time limit, courts can apply equitable defenses such as “laches” to deny retrospective relief and prevent disruption or inequity, the respondents said.