Last week, a jury found Lexington Law and Progrexion, a related entity, guilty of fraud for its practices of sending mass credit disputes to collection agencies. The CBE Group (CBE) and RGS Financial, Inc., the plaintiffs in this case, alleged that the credit repair organizations sent them large volumes of frivolous dispute letters purported to be from consumers. In reality, the letters all contained an almost-identical signature style and accompanying envelope as disputes received from other consumers.

[article_ad]

CBE and RGS Financial filed their suit against Lexington Law in 2017 in state court, and the defendants removed the case to federal court in September 2017. After two years of litigation, the case came to a head with a jury trial held in late June 2019, ending with closing arguments on July 2, 2019. The jury verdict entered a verdict in favor of CBE and RGS Financial on July 3, 2019.

The final jury verdict found that the defendants committed fraud (including by failure to disclose material facts) against CBE and RGS Financial. The jury stopped short of finding that the defendants were part of a conspiracy.

The jury awarded $487,965 combined in lost time sustained in the past and $63,718 in expenses sustained in the past. The jury contributed 65% of the damages to Lexington Law and 35% to Progrexion. The jury also awarded a whopping $1,948,317 in exemplary damages. The litigation is not quite over yet—the court still needs to enter judgment, and there remains an opportunity to file post-verdict motions and an appeal.

insideARM Perspective

insideARM received comments from Malone Frost Martin PLLC, which represented CBE and RGS Financial. Xerxes Martin states, “We had a great jury that understood our story from start to finish. They understood that what the defendants were doing not only hurt CBE and RGS, but the consumer clients as well.” Robbie Malone adds, “While a verdict is the first step in getting a final judgment, we are pleased the jury saw the fraudulent scheme for what it was. I am thankful for the hard work my team put in on the case and for having clients willing to go to bat like CBE group and RGS.”

The target has been on Lexington Law’s mass dispute processes lately. In addition to the above-referenced lawsuit, Ad Astra Recovery Services filed a similar suit against Lexington Law in the District of Kansas. Most recently in the Ad Astra Recovery suit, the court compelled Lexington Law to respond to discovery requests regarding communications with consumers relating to the mass credit dispute letters sent by the firm. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) also filed a suit against Lexington Law targeting the credit repair organization’s marketing practices. It will be interesting to see how these cases shake out and how this will impact the practices of other credit repair organizations.

The district court in New Jersey recently reminded TCPA litigants that there can be much more to jurisdiction and venue than meets the eye.  Even a court with proper jurisdiction can exercise its discretion and send a case to a more convenient forum.

The court did just that in Geraci v. Red Robin Int’l, Civil No. 1:18-cv-15542-RMB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104989 (D. N.J. June 21, 2019), transferring the plaintiff’s TCPA case from the plaintiff’s home state of New Jersey to the state of the defendant’s headquarters in Colorado.  The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged that the defendant Red Robin, a Nevada corporation headquartered in Colorado, violated the TCPA by sending unauthorized texts to the plaintiff’s cell phone through the Red Robin customer loyalty program. 

Despite Red Robin having 13 locations in New Jersey (out of over 400 nationwide), the technology used to send the texts at issue and Red Robin’s information systems were both located in Colorado.  So when the plaintiff filed a putative TCPA class action in New Jersey district court, Red Robin moved to transfer the case to Colorado district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

The New Jersey court found that the public and private interests “tilt[ed]” in favor of Colorado as the better forum for the plaintiff’s case. 

As to public interests, the court found that Colorado was the better venue based on the practicality of the forum, administrative considerations, and local interest in local controversies.  First, a significant number of records, witnesses, and technology were located in Colorado, as compared to a putative class of Red Robin customers who resided across the country and would have to travel regardless.  In addition to the location of witnesses and evidence, the court also leaned towards Colorado because the court there had a shorter median time from filing to trial than its New Jersey counterpart, and because the Colorado court would have a “more compelling local interest” in “a case about a company headquartered in Colorado allegedly harming citizens throughout the nation by using technology in Colorado to effect marketing decisions made in Colorado.”  (Emphasis added).

The court held that private interests likewise weighed in favor of Colorado over New Jersey, based on the defendant’s choice of forum and where the claim arose.  The court gave less consideration to the plaintiff’s choice of forum because the plaintiff need not “participate extensively” for the matter to proceed and the critical evidence in the case would come primarily from the defendant. The court followed the majority approach affording less deference to a class representative’s choice of forum, where most of the facts applicable to the class as a whole arose elsewhere. 

Here, New Jersey, the base of the plaintiff’s individual claim, could not win out over Colorado—“where Defendant is headquartered, where Defendant made the marketing decisions to send the alleged automated messages, and where the technology was used to communicate with Royalty Program members.”  While the plaintiff argued that the claim arose in New Jersey, where the plaintiff received the text messages, the court held that because the putative class allegedly suffered injury nationwide, the case revolved around the defendant’s activities in Colorado, not the location of the plaintiff’s individual injuries.

Geraci is a reminder that forum challenges can be worthwhile, particularly in putative class actions, where the plaintiff may struggle to identify a “center of gravity” for all class members beyond the defendant’s home state. In these instances, defense counsel should ask not only whether a court has proper jurisdiction but also whether that court is the best forum given the public and private interests at stake.

With many TCPA issues split by jurisdiction, it is at least worth asking the question about venue—though the court has the ultimate discretion on where the case will proceed.

—

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. 

JACKSONVILLE, Fl — Valor Intelligent Processing, LLC, also known as VIP, opened in Jacksonville, Florida on Monday, July 3rd, 2019. VIP is a modern era Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm led by industry veteran Gordon C. Beck III, President and Chief Operating Officer. 

VIP has made several key technology infrastructure investments to position itself on the leading edge of tech-enabled ARM services, such as the adoption of FICO® Debt ManagerÔ and the integration of several proprietary custom-developed and aggregated applications that involve business intelligence (BI) and artificial intelligence (AI) strategies never used before in the industry. The technology investment builds a collections and recovery lifecycle that meets customers where they want to interact, rather than only calling them when the agency expects it to be the right time, and is prudent in the latest environment of regulatory clarity and the need for a compliant digital customer experience.

VIP plans to hire 300 recovery professionals in Jacksonville to support a variety of commercial and consumer accounts, with scalability to 1,500 in call centers in Iowa and Georgia that are already licensed and ready for VIP’s future expansion.

“Valor is going to be different than any agency in the country. Founded by experts from both the BPO and collection industries, started by over 50 management, agents and back office with nearly 1,000 years of experience in the field and supported by enterprise technology in every aspect of the organization, we are launching with a plan to execute in a way that will send shockwaves throughout the ARM industry almost instantly. I’m blessed to be working with several dozen of the very best that the worlds of BPO and Recovery have to offer, and we are going to build a culture that will help change the image of our industry, one call at a time. We are going to make our mark and that mark is going to be remembered.” says Gordon Beck, President and COO.

VIP prides itself on providing a work atmosphere for employees that is second to none, where building careers and culture is a way of life and where the client, customer and employee experience will be unmatched.

About Valor Intelligent Processing, LLC

VIP provides enterprise-level 1st and 3rd party solutions for every stage of an account life-cycle. The VIP services and product offerings are robust; including, but not limited to, omnichannel collections and recovery, credit reporting, analytics, database, self-service and custom contact center business process management (BPM) solutions. VIP offers a unique strategy for the recovery of receivables and deploys the most advanced technology to enhance the customer experience and ensure compliance and quality at every turn. For more information, please visit www.valorvip.com

One of the earliest issues raised in the context of “robocall” processing was the inherent ambiguity of that term. The exact scope of a “robocall” still remains unclear, and even today different government agencies (i.e., the FCC and FTC) have different definitions of that term. 

[article_ad]

In the past, particularly in the context of analytics-based call blocking, we were saddled with a vocabulary that used inherently nebulous terms, such as referencing “illegal” or “legal” calls. The terms “wanted” and “unwanted” calls were no better. This vocabulary does not lend itself to precision, and it is evident that after several years, use of such “loaded” terms facilitates rhetoric, but not a common understanding.

So, we have an opportunity to put this behind us as we submit comments to the FCC on the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on call blocking, which are due July 24. In the realm of Shaken/Stir, we instead refer to calls as being “unsigned” or “signed.” Or, we refer to a call as having a full, partial, or gateway level of attestation. These are precise terms, and it allows us to discuss issues very clearly.

Consider one example. The NPRM is full of questions and statements referencing various nebulous terms (such as “illegal calls” or “unwanted calls”) in the context of Shaken/Stir technology. For example, the NPRM asks in paragraph 55, “Are there any particular protections we should establish for a safe harbor to ensure that wanted calls are not blocked?” In a Shaken/Stir environment, we discuss calls that are signed or not; we discuss that if calls are signed, then there is a validation process at the terminating carrier. If the call is validated, we can then discuss an indicated level of attestation.

The concept of what is a “wanted” or “unwanted” call is not defined in Shaken/Stir and has no place when discussing the Shaken/Stir processes.

We can clarify, for example, that calls originating from conventional (older) TDMA telephone networks may not be signed. Thus, those calls, once they interwork with a VoIP network, may be passed unsigned. Or, if that call is interworked at a gateway at the VoIP carrier, then the call may be given a level of gateway attestation. If such calls are blocked, then VoIP subscribers may be blocking calls from other U.S. subscribers calling from in rural areas. Let’s frame the question that way, and not whether the VoIP subscriber is blocking a “wanted” or “unwanted” call.

The rhetoric in the past would frame questions as, e.g.,: Are you in favor of “blocking unwanted or illegal calls”? In a Shaken/Stir environment, the question should be e.g., “Are you in favor of blocking any call that is unsigned (which includes callers from TDMA telephone networks)?” Or, “Are you in favor of blocking all gateway attested calls?”  This reduces the rhetoric to facilitate discussion of issues, not goals. If you or your association are preparing comments to the FCC, this is an important point to keep in mind. If we can shift the discussion to a more precise framing of the issues, I think we all have a better chance of communicating our concerns.

Have a safe and happy July 4^th! 

—

The comments above are attributed to the author, and not to Noble Systems.  Send any comments to kkoster@noblesystems.com

MILWAUKEE, WI. — Professional Placement Services, L.L.C., a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) and Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) has announced the company is seeking to establish HUBZone/WOSB subcontracts on the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Next Generation Servicing Environment contract.  Ms. Irina Johnson, President of the company says, “We’re very excited to offer our HUBZone and WOSB small business status to help companies submitting NextGen bids. “By including PPS and our socioeconomic status”, says Irina, “bidders will receive ‘highly rated’ evaluation scores on their Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP), a major RFP evaluation factor.”

ED’s RFP requires prime contractors to award up to thirty percent (30%) of contract value to HUBZone subcontractors by the third year of the contract.

“Professional Placement Services is perfectly positioned to help prime contractors meet NextGen’s bold vision for a ‘world class’ servicing solution,” said Craig Johnson, founder and principal of the company.  “For more than 20-years, we’ve met our clients’ complex operational requirements and uncompromising customer service standards,” stated Craig. “As one of just a few HUBZone collection firms in the nation, we’re excited to offer our services and capabilities to ED contractors.”

PPS supports the asset management and debt collection needs of the nation’s largest and most demanding consumer lending and student loan organizations, including a top Department of Education servicer and more than 100 other financial services organizations. PPS earns its clients’ trust and confidence through excellent customer service, superior compliance and responsive third-party BPO services: 

• 21 years’ of highly relevant past performance on demanding contracts of similar size, scope and complexity.
• Top-rated competitive performance, few validated and/or CFPB complaints, and superior audit results that align with ED’s Contractor Performance Monitoring & Evaluation (CPME) scorecard.
• ‘Hands-on’ executive management focused on achieving NextGen’s vital public policy goals.
• Capacity to provide a well-trained and engaged workforce of up to 100+ agents to meet ED’s current and future volume requirements.
• Enhanced servicing and special handling features that meet ED’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.
• Fully licensed and registered to perform third-party debt collection services on a nationwide basis.

For additional information about Professional Placement Services contact Craig Johnson at cjohnson@paypps.com or 414.220.4101 for more information.

A practical approach to realizing the benefits without the headaches!

[article_ad]

There is significant growth in the application of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) techniques within collections as it has been proven to create countless efficiencies; from enhancing the results of predictive models, to powering AI bots that interact with customers leaving staff free to address more complex issues. At present, one of the major constraining factors to using this advanced technology is the difficulty that comes with explaining the decisions made by these solutions to regulators. This regulatory focus is unlikely to diminish, especially with the various examples of AI bias which continue to be uncovered within various applications, resulting in discriminatory behaviors towards different groups of people.

While collections-specific regulations remain somewhat undefined on the subject, major institutions are resorting to their broader policy; namely that any decision needs be fully explainable. Although there are explainable Artificial Intelligence (xAI) techniques that can help us gain deeper insights from ML models such as FICO’s xAI Toolkit, the path to achieving sign-off within an organization can be a challenge.

The winners of the 2018 Explainable Machine Learning Challenge may provide a solution to realizing the benefits of AI / ML without the associated headache!

The challenge was a collaboration between Google, FICO and academics at Berkeley, Oxford, Imperial, UC Irvine and MIT, where teams of researchers were challenged with creating and explaining a black box model. The team from Duke University, which was awarded the FICO Recognition Award for their submission detailed in this blog post, We Didn’t Explain the Black Box — We Replaced it with an Interpretable Model, took a different approach – in essence, they ultimately didn’t use a black-box model, but a traditional, explainable one instead.

Machine Learning as the teacher for predictive modeling

By developing an ML-based model, in parallel with a more traditional interpretable model, the data scientist, or analytical modeler, can ‘learn’ from the outputs of the ML solution. For example, the ML solution can highlight:

1. Alternative modeling approaches (e.g., decision tree-based approach or alternate statistical functions)
2. New and interesting attributes to include within the model, including key complex interactions between attributes
3. Novel ways of binning attributes (e.g., finding a new way to group a number of more of less continuous values into a smaller number of ‘bins’. The bins are then used as new data groups).

The modeler can include these ML learnings in their traditional interpretable model, and attempt to ‘chase’ the superior predictive power of the ML model. It’s a never-ending game, where each round poses new intelligence as well as challenges.

The end result of this approach is a model whose decisions can be easily explained to a regulator. In addition to this, the risks associated with AI bias are mitigated as the inputs and calculations within the model continue to be understood by the analytics modeler. In summary, this solution provides a great interim step, realizing immediate benefits from ML techniques, while an organization becomes comfortable with the use of a fully functioning, explainable AI / ML solution.

—

This article previously appeared on FICO’s Analytics and AI Blog and was republished here with permission.

Yesterday President Trump signed into law the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 which, among other things, amends provisions related to income eligible for collection by private debt collectors.

In summary, the bill does the following:

• establishes the IRS Independent Office of Appeals to resolve federal tax controversies without litigation;
• requires the IRS to develop comprehensive customer service and IRS personnel training strategies;
• exempts certain low-income taxpayers from payments required to submit an offer-in-compromise;
• modifies certain tax enforcement procedures and requirements;
• establishes requirements for responding to Taxpayer Advocate Directives;
• establishes a Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Matching Grant Program;
• requires the IRS to give public notice of the closure of taxpayer assistance centers;
• modifies procedures for whistle-blowers;
• establishes requirements for cybersecurity and identity protection;
• provides notification to taxpayers of suspected identity theft;
• requires the appointment of a Chief Information Officer who shall develop and implement a multiyear strategic plan for IRS information technology needs;
• modifies requirements for managing IRS information technology;
• expands electronic filing of tax returns;
• prohibits the rehiring of certain IRS employees who were removed for misconduct;
• requires mandatory e-filing by tax-exempt organizations and notice before revocation of tax-exempt status for failure to file; and
• increases penalties for failure to file tax returns.

The bill also requires the IRS to implement:

• an Internet platform for Form 1099 filings,
• a fully automated program for disclosing taxpayer information for third-party income verification using the Internet, and
• uniform standards and procedures for accepting electronic signatures.

Amendments specific to debt collection

The new law exempts taxpayers from private collection activity whose income substantially consists of disability insurance benefits under section 223 of the Social Security Act or supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act, as well as those with adjusted gross income less than 200 percent of the applicable poverty level.

Second, the law changes the calculation for eligibility of inactive receivables by replacing “more than 1/3 of the period of the applicable statute of limitation has lapsed” with “more than 2 years has passed since assessment”.

Third, the law increases the maximum length of installment agreements that private collectors can offer taxpayers from five years to seven.

Finally, the law clarifies items that may be treated as program costs eligible for use of Treasury funds for administering the qualified tax collection program. Newly eligible expenses include special compliance personnel, and “communications, software, technology” (where the law used to reference “telecommunications”).

insideARM Perspective

The Private Debt Collection program at the IRS has a long and storied history. This is the third-go around at such a program. insideARM most recently reported that this latest contract, awarded in 2016, has been successful.

Earlier attempts were in 1996 and 2006. Both programs were canceled amidst claims that they cost taxpayers more than they collected. However, these claims were disputed, even by the Government Accounting Office (GAO). See this 2010 article about problems with the decision to end the 2006 program.

It’s promising that this third attempt is merely undergoing tweaks rather than fighting an outcry for cancelation.

What’s also interesting is the requirement for the IRS to submit a plan within one year to create a comprehensive customer service strategy, including a secure system that incorporates online/self-service options, telephone call back services, better employee training, and metrics and benchmarks for measuring progress. This sounds familiar. Kind of like the comprehensive overhaul of the student loan servicing system going on at the Department of Education (ED). However, this law simply creates the requirement to submit a plan, while ED is fully immersed in implementation. As the IRS plan is submitted we will be fully immersed in the 2020 election. We will have to wait to see whether that plan goes any farther than a paper concept. 

If you haven’t been following the history of the nonprofit organization called RIP Medical Debt, now is a great time to start. The video below was just-published by Freethink, a media company that shines a light on world-changing initiatives.

Their website states, “At Freethink you’ll find inspiring stories from the frontiers of our rapidly-changing world. Each week we release powerful, short-form videos, profiling an innovator, entrepreneur or activist who is thinking differently and making a difference.” They’ve chosen to feature the work of Craig Antico and Jerry Ashton, the activists and former collectors who founded RIP Medical Debt.

You can read more of insideARM’s coverage of RIP here.

[article_ad]

It wasn’t supposed to be this way for Justice Kavanaugh.

He joined the Court with high and oft-reported aspirations of gutting the entire rubric of judicial deference to agency action. From the Hobbs Act to Chevron deference, his ascension to the Supreme legal perch in the land was supposed to herald the beginning of the end for Article I agencies dictating the scope of their own administrative power. Yet just last week the Supreme Court punted on the issue of— with an eye toward upholding—judicial deference to agency action under the Hobbs Act. And just today the Supreme Court affirmatively upheld arguably the crown jewel judicial deference doctrine—so-called Auer deference. In doing so the Supreme Court underscores all of the good reasons why courts have taught themselves to defer to agency rulings in the first place.

[article_ad]

While the Supreme Court’s newest Justice is likely a bit hot under the collar following today’s ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie–found here— the decision is outstanding for TCPA litigants hoping to convince a court to stay cases pending the FCC’s upcoming ruling on the pending TCPA Public Notice proceeding.

Before we get to why the decision matters, let’s talk through what Auerdeference is to begin with. My two favorite philosophers (Rousseau and Nietzsche- always in that order) agree on very little save this—words are imprecise approximations built, largely, to allow human beings to deceive one another. As such all words and phrases are imbued with ambiguity and limitation, some more than others. And while the legal profession continues to believe in the illusion of “unambiguous” statutes and regulations, the (metaphysical) truth is that every phrase ever uttered is merely an approximation for the intended meaning of the speaker.

So Courts are (very) often called upon to interpret vague regulations in the context of the concrete factual scenarios before them. But how should it go about interpreting those words to give them their proper and intended effect? As the Supreme Court in Kisor explains, rather than interpret those words for itself, Article III courts have long deferred to the interpretations intended by the author. Most of the time this means looking at the intent of Congress or whatever legislature wrote the act being applied. Thus “legislative history” is commonly reviewed when an “ambiguous” statute is at issue. But what if the rule of law being applied isn’t a statute but, rather, a regulation promulgated by an agency? Well in this setting too the Courts have long deferred to the intentions of the author—here the agency promulgating the rule. That deference is called Auer deference.

Recognizing that the party writing a statute, or rule of law, is likely a pretty good source to turn to on questions of interpretation it may seem like deferring to agency interpretation in this context is no big deal. Maybe. But here’s the issue—unlike Congress or other flat-footed legislative bodies, agencies can both promulgate rules and enforce them. That means Auerdeference allows an agency to pursue an enforcement action under a “reasonable” interpretation of a vague statute that had never been expressly spelled out by the agency, and yet have its just-made-up (but reasonable ) interpretation of the regulation deemed binding in an enforcement action. That’s a little like the police being able to tell you what the “reasonable” speed limit was only after issuing you a ticket.

There’s another downside to Auer deference as well—it encourages agencies to draft statutes that are nice and broad and vague. The wider the swatch of conduct potentially covered, the greater the agency’s power to enforce the regulation—and who doesn’t like power? By creating vague regulations the agency gives itself the widest possible range of motion to pursue “violators” and determine later what the regulation actually covers in specific circumstances. (Notably the majority opinion in Kisor rips this notion as factually unsupportable, but the notion still has visceral impact and, therefore, will be accepted as true by at least half of Americans– including four members of the US Supreme Court.)

Ok, so now you’re probably wondering whether Auer deference is a good idea after all. Well—and this is the point—a bare majority of the Supreme Court does, and in defending the doctrine the Kisor ruling gives a large number of important reasons why courts should defer to agency action. And that is why Kisor is so important for litigators in TCPA cases hoping to one day feast on manna from the FCC heavens.

As Justice Kagan explains, writing for the majority, there are four major reasons to apply Auer deference: i) the agency knows what it meant when it wrote the regulation; ii) the agency is imbued by Congress with power to make policy decisions; iii) the agency has high-specialization, expertise, and fact-finding capability that far outpace the courts; and iv) the need for a uniform application of the agency’s regulations. But wait a second folks. As readers of TCPAWorld.com already know, that is the exact doctrinal foundation for the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Specifically, the primary jurisdiction doctrine—which require courts to stay cases to await the outcome of agency action—likewise looks at the agency’s expertise, fact-finding capability, policy-making authority and ability to promulgate uniform regulations. In other words, the Supreme Court just re-emphasized the need for courts to defer to agency action—including re-approving and underscoring all the good reasons that courts must stay cases pending agency action.

Cool.

Then again the Court does apply a few limits to Auer deference that ought to be kept in mind. First, the regulation must really be “genuinely” ambiguous—whatever that means. (See what I did there?) Second, the agency’s regulation must be genuinely reasonable. (Stop me if you’ve heard this one before…) Third, the ruling must apply the agency’s substantive expertise in some manner. Fourth, the agency’s interpretation must be a “fair and considered” judgment on the issue and not just a “convenient litigating position.” I love this last one—it allows courts to probe whether an agency has really thought its position through or is just making stuff up as it goes along. That should go well.

Read together, Kisor and PDR Resources demonstrate that the more things change the more they stay the same. And, for now at least, that means the FCC’s official TCPA rulings are likely entitled to a great deal of deference. So, let’s get back to seeking primary jurisdiction stays already.

Then again, this:

One further point: Issues surrounding judicial deference to agency interpretations of their own regulations are distinct from those raised in connection with judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes enacted by Congress. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). I do not regard the Court’s decision today to touch upon the latter question.

-Chief Justice Roberts, Concurring in Kisor

—

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. 

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — In June the team of employees from Continental Service Group, Inc., d/b/a:  ConServe, directed the donations from their Jeans For Charity program to local organizations aimed at helping people cope with difficult life-changing and life-saving challenges. As June’s Jeans For Charity recipients, the Ronald McDonald House Charities and Upstate New York Transplant Services (Unyts) that support the Buffalo and Rochester areas, provide vital services to those in need. Whether it’s keeping families together when children are undergoing critical hospital care or fulfilling the blood needs of Western New York, both organizations help to ease the burden of coping with what can sometimes be overwhelming circumstances. 

Through the company’s Jeans For Charity program, in which ConServe employees can elect to participate in monthly charitable donations in exchange for the option of wearing jeans to work, employees are provided with the opportunity to “give back” to their local communities by donating to a diverse group of organizations throughout the year.  Additionally, the funds raised by the employees’ generosity is supplemented by the organization’s “Matching Gift Program.” This ongoing initiative symbolizes ConServe’s commitment to its corporate mission of helping to improve the human condition. 

Krystle Ellis, Director of Communication and Events for the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Rochester (RMHCR) states, “this gift means a great deal to our families. RMHCR is supported 100% through community donations.  ConServe’s donation will allow families to remain strong and together during the most critical time of their life.” Greg Eastmer, Senior Partner Relations Associate at Unyts said, “we are so grateful to have ConServe as a partner in saving lives through donation and transplantation, and we are so appreciative for their generous donation. Thanks to their support, Unyts will be able to continue to further our education and awareness efforts across the community, and ultimately save more lives.”

About ConServe

ConServe is a top-performing award-winning provider of accounts receivable management services specializing in customized recovery solutions for our Clients. Anchored with ethics and compliance, and steadfast in our pursuit of excellence, we are a consumer-centric organization that operates as an extension of our Client’s valued brand.  For over 30 years, we have partnered with our Clients to give them peace of mind while simultaneously helping their consumers achieve financial freedom. At ConServe we call it Fostering Financial Freedom®.

Visit ConServe online at: www.conserve-arm.com

About ConServe’s Jeans For Charity Program

ConServe’s Jeans For Charity initiative began in 2008 when the team’s employees had an idea to launch a program that would provide a way for the company’s mission of “improving the human condition” to coordinate with the organization’s commitment of giving back to their community.  ConServe employees are given the opportunity to participate in monthly charitable donations, benefitting a wide range of recipients, in exchange for having the option of dressing down and wearing jeans to work for the entire month. The funds raised by the employees’ generosity are supplemented by the organization’s Matching Gift Program – symbolizing ConServe’s commitment to good corporate citizenship. This ongoing initiative is just one of the ways in which ConServe supports varied and diverse community agencies. To date, the program has donated over $945,947 to local community organizations.  

About Ronald McDonald House Charities (RMHC)

For over 29 years, the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Rochester, NY has worked to help families find a close, comfortable and affordable place to stay while their child receives the medical care they need.  We support the health and wellness of children and their families through innovative programming, supportive services, and community partnerships. Our vision is to have every family and child in our region facing a challenging health or wellness situation supported through a community of care, comfort, and compassion.

Visit RMHC online at: www.rmhcrochester.org

About Unyts

Established in 1981, Unyts is among the leading procurement organizations in the United States and is one of only eight centers nationwide to house organ, eye and tissue procurement in one location. With the addition of Community Blood Services in 2007, Unyts was the first organization of its kind nationwide. Unyts operates as a non-profit serving the eight counties of Western New York and works to assist donor families, coordinate the donation process and increase knowledge and awareness within the community regarding transplantation.

Visit Unyts online at:  www.unyts.org