CINCINNATI, Ohio — Slovin & Associates has announced that Brad Council, an attorney with the creditor’s rights law firm, has been promoted to partner. Since joining the law firm in 2007, Council’s practice has covered all areas of commercial litigation, creditor’s rights including compliance with federal and state consumer credit and collection laws, and landlord-tenant matters. He regularly represents and advises national banking associations, medical service providers, debt-buyers and other credit grantors on creditor’s rights and account receivables management. Council is adept at helping clients maintain compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), UDAAP, and similar state law acts and regulations. Additionally, he has also represented manufacturers, sub-contractors and material suppliers involving actions under the Uniform Commercial Code relating to sales, leases and secured transactions. 

“It is my privilege to announce that Brad has been promoted to partner with Slovin & Associates,” said founding partner Randy Slovin. “He is an exceptional lawyer who has continuously achieved results for our clients over his 12-year tenure with the firm.”

In addition to his law practice, Council serves as chairman of the Midwest Region for the Commercial Law League of America creditor’s rights organization and is a member of the Executive Council of the Commercial Law League’s Young Members Section. Council is also co-chair of the Ohio Legislative Committee for Receivables Management Association International, the nation’s premier trade association for companies that purchase receivables on the secondary market. 

Council holds a Doctor of Law from the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University (Highland Heights, Ky.), and a Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences/ Criminal Justice from the University of Illinois at Chicago (Chicago, Ill.). 

[article_ad]

About Slovin & Associates

Slovin & Associates law firm aims to achieve the highest rating for creditor’s rights law firms in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana by obtaining expeditious and cost-efficient results in a professional and low-maintenance environment for our clients in the fields of collections, commercial and consumer litigation, bankruptcy, leasing and landlord-tenant law, and Fair Debt consulting.

Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its latest edition of Supervisory Highlights. While debt collection contained one reference, a large portion of the Highlights revolved around the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and credit reporting disputes.  

In regards to debt collection, the report focused on the collection of interest. According to the report, “[o]ne or more debt collectors claimed and collected from consumers, interest not authorized by the underlying contracts between the debt collectors and the creditors.” The entity (or entities) in question will conduct a full accounting of the problematic interest collected—including for accounts already resolved accounts—for remediation to consumers.

Another observation in the report—against a creditor, but which is relevant to debt collection—was using false or misleading statements in order to recover an account. Specifically, the Bureau noted that a credit card issuer threatened to repossess a consumer’s vehicle or foreclose on a consumer’s home while collecting on a credit card account. Such statements, according to the report, could mislead a consumer since the issuer does not repossess vehicles or foreclose on homes for such account, such practices go against its internal policies.

Credit reporting had its fair share of real estate within the report, with many of the observations revolving around disputes. The Bureau’s examiners found the following issues:

• Failing to investigate disputes within the timeframe proscribed by the FCRA, or at times not investigating disputes altogether.
• Failing to report results of dispute investigations to all credit reporting companies.
• Failing to promptly correct previously-furnished information that an investigation found to be inaccurate.
• Failing to mark the account as disputed after receiving a consumer’s dispute.
• Failure to have adequate policies procedures regarding the integrity of the information furnished to the credit bureaus.

[article_ad]

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee met yesterday with an agenda that included “Consideration of Robocall Blocking Recommendation.” Brian Young of the National Consumers League, a co-chair of the Robocall Blocking Working Group, made the presentation.

The Committee’s unanimous recommendations called on the Commission to ensure that consumers are clearly informed of what types of calls will be blocked and will be able to easily identify erroneously blocked calls.

As for the Critical Calls List – the list of calls that consumers might want to ensure are not blocked so long as authenticated – the Committee adopted a narrow recommendation, focused on emergency and government-related communications – which was the FCC’s “starting point” in its ongoing Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 17-59. The FCC had also asked for comment on whether other types of calls, such as calls from schools, doctors, alarm companies, flight alerts, recall centers, and fraud and weather alerts should be included. Some of these options had been supported by those who had commented in the rulemaking proceeding. No such support by the Committee.

Although the schedule had allocated a half hour for the presentation and discussion, the Committee unanimously adopted the following recommendations without question or discussion:

• Telecommunications providers should clearly disclose to consumers what types of calls will be blocked and that there is a risk that legitimate calls will be blocked. 

• Any blocking program should have clear opt out instructions and consumers should be able to manage their blocking preferences through an easy to use online portal, through customer service representatives on the phone and in-person at retail stores.

• Consumers should be notified when a call is blocked and have access to a log of all blocked calls.

• Consumers should be able to easily identify erroneously blocked calls.

• The FCC should work with the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general and consumer groups to educate the public about the opt-out program.

• The Critical Calls list (calls that will not be blocked) should remain narrow and only involve government numbers and focus on emergency communications, government benefits, and government services. The FCC should review the list periodically and keep in mind that the larger the list becomes, the higher the likelihood of erroneous blocking or fraud.

These recommendations will go to the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and Commission itself, which are considering, among other things, the Critical Calls List issue, in the ongoing rulemaking.

—

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. 

PLANO, Texas — The CMI Group and its legal partner Malone Frost Martin PLLC received a critical verdict in recent legal action, a pivotal decision for the Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) industry. The verdict defends The CMI Group and the ARM industry as a whole against claims, specifically as they relate to revenue cycle management, debt collection and the technologies utilized. The CMI Group is an industry leader in accounts receivable management, customer care, revenue cycle management, and omnichannel communications, and this recent ruling demonstrates the firm’s full compliance with all laws and regulations as well as their expertise and understanding of the industry on behalf of their clients.

Malone Frost Martin PLLC represented The CMI Group at trial in the Northern District of Texas for claims associated with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Texas and Kansas Fair Debt Collection Acts. Robbie Malone and Xerxes Martin tried the case with the briefing assistance of Jacob Bach. In the Dehn v. Credit Management, LP trial, the jury weighed both sides, including claims by the plaintiff that the collection technologies utilized by the defendant on behalf of their clients was a violation of the TCPA and Texas and Kansas state debt collection acts.

After presenting all of The CMI Group’s training and compliance records, as well as call logs, collections notes, and call recordings, the jury ruled unanimously in favor of CMI on all claims. Most notably, the jury instruction for the TCPA claim included an adopted application of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling in FCC v. ACA International as to what constitutes an automated telephone dialing system under the statute.

“We were confident taking this claim to trial because we stand behind CMI’s reputation in the ARM industry for their expertise, understanding and full compliance with all laws and regulations,” said Xerxes Martin, of Malone Frost Martin. “In fact, we made that the cornerstone of our defense on the state collection law claims.”

“A pivotal question in the case was whether or not the telephone dialing system, an admitted predictive dialer, met the statutory definition of an automated telephone dialing system. The court correctly applied the case law in submitting the charge and the jury understood the issue,” added Robbie Malone of Malone Frost Martin. “This trial victory sets a precedent for the entire industry.”

The implications of this ruling are a milestone for the ARM and revenue cycle management industry, proving that the omnichannel communications technologies used by companies such as The CMI Group in debt and unpaid balance collections on behalf of their clients is in full compliance of federal and state laws. 

“The CMI Group is a highly disciplined organization that has well-established processes, systems, and technologies in place to ensure they deliver both optimum results and positive customer relationships to clients, while remaining in full compliance with the law,” said Christopher Meier, Esq., General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer at The CMI Group. “This ruling proved that – through all of our training and compliance policies – The CMI Group is viewed as a company intent on operating in a way that best protects the consumers we work with. I am grateful that we had excellent counsel who was able to convey that to our jury.”

About The CMI Group, Inc.

The CMI Group, a leader in accounts receivable management, customer care, revenue cycle management, and omnichannel communications. The CMI Group is a 100-percent employee-owned solutions provider to clients nationwide. Through its subsidiaries, The CMI Group delivers innovative revenue cycle, accounts receivable, and contact center solutions resulting in enhanced operational efficiency and increased revenue for its clients. The CMI Group believes there is power in relationships and success occurs when individuals collaborate on a common objective. The CMI Group is dedicated to building the trust and bonds that deliver positive results for both our clients and their consumers. Visit thecmigroup.com for more information.

The CMI Group and The CMI Group logo are trademarks of The CMI Group and/or its subsidiaries.

About Malone Frost Martin PLLC

Malone Frost Martin PLLC is a full-service law firm with specialization in the accounts receivable management (ARM) industry.  The firm has offices in Dallas, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri; and Cedar Falls, Iowa. Malone Frost Martin PLLC provides services in all 50 states. www.mamlaw.com 

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. — Immediate Credit Recovery (ICR) is pleased to announce Lynn (Heineman) Reynolds has joined our executive team to expand our growth in the accounts receivable and business process outsourcing space. Ms. Reynolds has over 26 years in the industry with strong ties in Federal and State servicing contracts, auto, consumer and education verticals. Prior to joining ICR, Ms. Reynolds spent the tenure of her years in the industry with other prominent agencies. She has a B.S. degree from Houghton College in Business Management, formerly served on the COHEAO and NCHER Board of Directors and has been a past presenter at numerous industry conferences.  

In addition to expanding ICR’s suite of services and exposure, Lynn will be responsible for ICR’s sales team, market direction, and marketing strategies. Lynn will also participate in our ongoing commitment to build relationships and develop synergies within the industry. “I have known Lynn for many years and we are very pleased to have her on board and look forward to her contributions as the newest member of the ICR management team”, said Juan Blanco, Chief Operations Officer. 

About ICR

Immediate Credit Recovery (ICR) is a BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) company specializing in customer-centric, performance-driven results in the federal, state, healthcare, education, and consumer verticals.  ICR is a premier servicer that prides itself with the highest levels of data security, regulatory compliance, and professionalism offered in our industry; all while ensuring that every individual contacted receives courteous, prompt and unsurpassed ethical treatment in every conversation. Our independent surveys confirm this unequaled commitment to total customer satisfaction.

ICR was founded in New York in 1990 with locations in Poughkeepsie, NY, Atlanta, GA and in San Angelo, TX.  For more information about our services, please contact sales@icrsolutions.net or visit our website at www.icrsolutions.net  

I love a little irony in the morning. Or in the afternoon. Really anytime is a good time for irony. How about right now.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal just applied strict scrutiny to a Montana state “anti-robocall” enactment that applied on a limited basis to only certain categories of calls, including—but not limited to—political calls. See Victory Processing, LLC v. Fox,  No. 18-35163, 6:17-cv-00027-CCL. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the statute improperly restricted political speech in a manner that is inconsistent with the First Amendment and struck the statute down.

[article_ad]

Why is that ironic? Because the Ninth Circuit has just twice upheld the far broader TCPA—which also regulates political speech and all sorts of additional kinds of speech—applying the same standard. See Dugid and Gallion.

So what’s going on here?

Well, believe it or not, the result appears to turn on whether a statute is written as a restriction subject to content-specific exemptions or as a content-specific restriction in the first place. In other words, a statute that says “you cannot use robocalls to discuss politics” would be (and just was) struck down but a statute that said “you cannot use robocalls unless you are discussing something other than politics,”  would survive, albeit with a severance of the content-specific exemption. Confused? Me too.

Although the First Amendment is designed to prevent unlawful regulation of speech two circuit courts of appeals—including the Ninth Circuit—have recently expanded the TCPA by removing a content-specific exemption from the statute. This is done because statutes that impose content-specific restrictions on speech—like the TCPA and the Montana Robocall Act at issue in Victor Processing— are subject to higher scrutiny levels than content-neutral statute. The basic concept is that although the First Amendment says the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, in reality, the government can make such laws but only if they regulate speech in an even-handed way that does not benefit one type of speech over another. Where strict scrutiny is applied: “[a] statute is [only] narrowly tailored if it targets and eliminates no more than the exact source of the ‘evil’ it seeks to remedy.”

Although both the TCPA and the Montana Robocall Act are content-specific, they are different in that the TCPA contains a content-specific exemption and the Montana ordinance contains a content-specific restriction. To be sure the result is the same—speech is regulated based upon its content. Yet the remedy the Ninth Circuit applied to these statutes could not be more different. With respect to the Montana Robocall statute, the Ninth Circuit struck down the enforcement of the restriction entirely because it improperly hampered political speech. With respect to the TCPA, however, the Ninth Circuit severed a content-specific exemption, keeping the law on the books and expanding the TCPA to cover even more speech (including political speech!).  So the same speech the Ninth Circuit just held Montana could not constitutionally regulate remains subject to nearly identical regulation under the TCPA.

This obviously makes no sense. The TCPA’s restrictions on speech do not survive strict scrutiny any more than the Montana ordinance’s do— the TCPA is not narrowly tailored to anything since no one even knows what it covers— and the solution is the same; the statute should be struck down– not broadened– as Victory processing demonstrates.

What is really remarkable here is that it looks like one hand didn’t know what the other hand was doing.  The Victory Processing panel appears to have been unaware of the rulings in Duguid and Gallion –it does not make note of these rulings and affirmatively (and inaccurately) notes “[w]e have not had the occasion to evaluate the constitutionality of a content-based regulation of robocalls until now.” In reality, of course, the Ninth Circuit has twice evaluated the constitutionality of a content-based regulation of robocalls within just the last few months. Just another day in TCPAWorld.

On the plus side, the Ninth Circuit panel recognized that some automated calls are “useful, such as automated appointment or payment reminders.”  It also focused on a narrow area where automated calls are problematic:  “Congress was concerned that unsolicited automated calls—predominantly to landline telephones—were invading individuals’ homes and tying up their phone lines.” Make use of this as you will.

—

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. 

Editor’s Note: Back in June of this year, the jury returned the verdict in this case. On Monday, the judge entered the judgment, as described below.

TCPA cases against debt collectors and first-party creditors are notoriously difficult to certify. They typically involve individual issues of consent and revocation that make certification impossible.

But when a debt collection TCPA case does get certified, look out! They can get painful, as a California-based debt collector just found out in McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 4:16-cv-03396 (N.D. Cal.). The jury returned a whopping $267 million for 534,000 calls. Ouch.

[article_ad]

The defendant did get a bit of a reprieve when the plaintiff dropped the request for treble damages, apparently satisfied with their $267 million bounty.

So why did McMillion result in a massive verdict while other debt collection TCPA cases are being denied certification left and right? The answer appears to lie in the defendant’s calling practices. The case involved four subclasses that fell into two categories: 1) individuals called through skip tracing and 2) individuals called who never had an account placed with the debt collector. If individuals that fall into those two categories were truly ascertainable, then that is a plaintiff’s attorney’s dream. And basically the only way to certify a debt collection TCPA case. Otherwise, debt collection cases devolve into countless individualized inquiries to sift through mountains of account-level data to evaluate consent.

McMillion is, therefore, a reminder to the collections industry of the TCPA risks involved in skip tracing. If you are going to call skip traced numbers as part of a collections strategy, it should never be through a dialer. Or even a manual dialing mode within a dialer. The TCPA risks are simply too high.

—

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. 

WILMINGTON, Del. — Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., the international deceased account management specialist, servicing creditors in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, Spain, Portugal and New Zealand, is excited to announce plans to extend its unique, compassion-based servicing to the German market by confirming a long-term lease on a prestigious Düsseldorf base.    

The business, which has been providing market-leading niche services to creditors since its foundation in 1997, has identified the historic and vibrant city of Düsseldorf as an ideal headquarters for its German expansion plans.  After conducting a lengthy due diligence process on the German market, the Board is confident in the value which PCA’s unique services can add for German creditors and has secured a long-term lease at a prime location in the Düsseldorf CBD.

Discussing the expansion, Adam S. Cohen, Co-Chairman/CEO said, “We are delighted to have secured our German office.  Moving into Germany is one of several upcoming steps in our successful international expansion, which has spanned over a decade.  We expect our compassionate engagement model to be well received by the German market and our due diligence in-country made it clear that Düsseldorf represents the ideal location for our growth ambitions.”   

Nick Cherry, COO, commented, “Düsseldorf CBD provides an outstanding base for our business and we are confident that the combination of excellent facilities and strong transport links will help us attract talent from the region to fuel our growth. 

Our long-term lease is also a mark of our commitment to the German market, and we look forward to building a business of scale there.”

About Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.

Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. is a specialty receivable management company providing customized services to creditors in a variety of unique market segments.  Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd is domestically headquartered in Wilmington, DE, with additional offices in Colorado and Florida as well as international offices in the UK, Canada, Australia, and Spain.  For more information about Phillips & Cohen Associates visit www.phillips-cohen.com or Philhen.de.lips-co 

PCA provides Equal Employment Opportunity for all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status, genetic information and any other basis protected by federal, state or local laws.

As an extension of First Financial Asset Management (and the FFAM360 group of Companies)’s Leadership Community Outreach Program, members of FFAM360 management partnered with Friends of Refugees to build a community garden and playground for local families in Clarkston, GA. 

Founded in 1995, Friends of Refugees is a non-profit organization that partners with donors, churches, funders, volunteers, businesses, development organizations, and fellow community members to empower refugees through opportunity. The organization and its programs aim to provide for refugees’ well-being, education, and employment. 

On Friday, August 16, 2019, the FFAM360 volunteers assisted in the construction of a new garden and playground for families who, out of fear of persecution, have recently moved to the United States from their home countries. In support of the organization’s efforts to enrich the lives of refugees, FFAM360 is proud to have been a part of the community project. Volunteers helped to spread mulch over the playground floor, assemble and install donated playground equipment, and reap the rewards of serving the local community. 

“Our goal was to help create a positive & rewarding environment for the children and families who have fled their country of nationality in search of a safer and brighter future here in the United States. Being invited to participate in the building of this new community area hosted by Friends of Refugees was a unique opportunity for our management to shoulder some of the burdens these families have encountered during their life journey and, ultimately, to create rewarding change,” says Matthew Maloney, President and Chief Investment Officer of FFAM360.  “Our work with Friends of Refugees deeply reflects the values we hold as a company whose mission is in part to carry out our work with an intentional mission-rooted mindset. Together, we can add value to the communities in which we live and work while making a direct and positive impact on our society and our world. Our volunteerism with Friends of Refugees is an outward expression of our values in action and our commitment to leading by example through Intentional living.”

Friends of Refugees is centered around its three core values of relationship, empowerment, and stewardship. As a member of the Christian Community Development Association, Friends of Refugees deploys targeted theories of change to promote abundant life and build flourishing communities. 

“Each year, the employees and management of the FFAM360 group of Companies engage in various volunteer and charity events as part of the company’s Intentional Living campaign,” continues Mr. Maloney. “Our Leadership Community Outreach Program is part of our annual Intentional Living campaign. Intentional living is each person’s choice to support one another and support the causes that have impacted each of us and those closest to us. We are extremely proud to add our name to the esteemed list of volunteers who are empowering Friends of Refugees and helping to improve the lives of the families who rely on them each day.”

For more information on Friends of Refugees and to find out how you can help, please visit their website at friendsofrefugees.com.

About FFAM360

The FFAM360 group of companies deploys world-class people, operations, and technology to deliver revenue cycle solutions to their clients that optimize their credit and revenue lifecycles. Founded in 2002 with the vision of creating a best-in-class organization that provides comprehensive solutions across the Insurance Subrogation, Healthcare, Staffing, and Financial Service sectors, FFAM360 has achieved many significant awards and recognitions including being honored by the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council (“WBENC”) as a Certified Women-Owned Business Enterprise. FFAM360 is headquartered just outside Atlanta, GA with additional offices in Phoenix, AZ and Paso Robles, CA.

Back in November 2018, Delivery Financial Services, LLC, filed a lawsuit against Lemberg Law for publishing allegedly libelous statements or, at the very least, negligent misrepresentations on its website. On August 27, 2019, the District of Arizona denied Lemberg Law’s motion to dismiss the claims.

According to the complaint, Lemberg Law “intentionally and recklessly states over the Internet that Plaintiff is engaged in illegal activity. Defendant has no factual basis to support its statements and makes these statements for the purpose of recruiting clients for a fee.” Some of the alleged libel from the website include:

• “Lemberg Law represents consumers nationwide in debt collection abuse, telephone harassment, lemon law, auto fraud, personal injury, wage overtime and class action cases.”
• “Scary Harrassment from 602-490-3955 / 6024903955 Is NOT forever.”
• “Delivery Financial Services may be harassing illegally. Sue for $500-$1,500 per call from 602-490-3955.”
• “Question: I have exhausted every thing I have from messing with Delivery Financial Services and I’m at the end of my rope. Please let me know your staff can help.
  Answer: Hi, you have located the right people. My team perseveres every single day to ease the strain of third party debt collectors who are shirking the state and federal regulations which stops them from harassing honest people like you.”

• “Let’s have a look at this example: a woman is planning to take her daughter out to look for a dress on a Saturday morning. She sets the alarm for 8:30 but her phone rings at 7:30. It’s a bill collection agency inquiring about a medical bill from her daughter’s emergency appendectomy (sic) couple years ago. She hangs up the phone call and the moment she was about to fall back to sleep they call once again. This time around, she tells them she doesn’t have $15,000 to pay the debt. She gets up with effort and starts getting ready for the trip to the store. On Sunday, she sets her alarm clock for 9:00 so she can be at services by 10:15. This time, the mobile phone rings at 6:45 and it’s the same the same (sic) representative. Delivery Financial Services likely is going against the FDCPA because debt collectors can only phone between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. in your time zone.”

[article_ad]

In the order on Lemberg Law’s motion to dismiss, the court found that Delivery Financial Services sufficiently stated a claim for the case to continue. There was some procedural back-and-forth about whether Delivery Financial Services sufficiently supported its bid for diversity jurisdiction to allow a federal court to hear the case, but the order states that the amended complaint resolved this issue.

On September 6, 2019, Lemberg Law filed an answer to the amended complaint denying any allegations of wrongdoing.