SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) proudly announces a resource for financial success (http://financialliteracy.rocks/). As an organization, RMAI is strongly committed to protecting consumers and helping them reach their financial goals, manage debt, and create a stronger economy one financial decision at a time.

Financial literacy includes the education and understanding of financial topics related to managing personal finance, money, and investing. Financial literacy also encompasses financial principles and concepts such as financial planning, debt management, saving, retirement, and managing expenses.

FinancialLiteracy.ROCKS expands on and provides updated information, resources and enhanced navigation to financial topics that were originally created by the United States Financial Literacy and Education Commission established under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (MyMoney.gov).

FinancialLiteracy.Rocks allows everyone from beginning learners through experienced consumers to navigate topics on financial literacy grouped by audience and topic.

By Audience:

• Kids
• Young Adults
• College Students & New Grads
• Couples
• Adults
• Parents
• Service Members
• Business
• Seniors

By Topic:

• Credit & Debt
• Savings & Budgeting
• Expenses
• Credit Score
• Loans
• Investments
• Vehicle
• Housing
• Retirement

FinancialLiteracy.ROCKS provides a variety of entertaining videos, instructional programs, interactive games and comprehensive overviews of topics.

“RMAI is committed to consumer financial education and upholding the highest ethical standards for the accounts receivable management industry,” said RMAI Executive Director, Jan Stieger. FinancialLiteracy.ROCKS helps consumers understand basic money management skills to ultimately help manage finances and reduce debt.”

About Receivables Management Association International

Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) is the nonprofit trade association that represents more than 500 companies that purchase or support the purchase of performing and nonperforming receivables on the secondary market. The Receivables Management Certification Program and Code of Ethics set the global standard within the receivables industry due to its rigorous uniform industry standards of best practice which focus on the protection of the consumer. RMAI provides its members with extensive networking, educational, and business development opportunities in asset classes that span numerous industries. The association continually sets the standard in the receivables management industry through its highly effective grassroots advocacy, conferences, committees, task forces, publications, webinars, and breaking news alerts. Founded in 1997 as the Debt Buyers Association, RMAI is headquartered in Sacramento, California.

Yesterday, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee held a hearing to discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and the newly-introduced Consumers First Act. The hearing opened with a sometimes contentious four hours of testimony from the Bureau’s new Director, Kathy Kraninger. This was followed by testimony from a panel of consumer advocates and one industry representative.

The industry representative was Scott Weltman, of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LTD, a collection firm which recently prevailed in a lawsuit filed against it by the CFPB. Scott Frotman, the Bureau’s former student loan ombudsman who resigned and launched a student loan borrower protection center, also testified. Other panelists included Hilary Shelton from the NAACP, Linda Jun from Americans for Financial Reform, and Jennifer Davis from National Military Family Association.

Kathy Kraninger’s full prepared statement can be downloaded here.

Both parts of the hearing covered seven main topics extensively. Each is discussed in detail below.

1. The Bureau’s Purpose and Mission

One thing Director Kraninger, the panelists, and the committee members all agreed on is that the main purpose of the Bureau is to protect consumers, but opinions differed about how to accomplish this. Democratic committee members and the consumer advocate panelists insisted the fact that the Bureau (under former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney) disbanded the Consumer Advisory Board and eliminated the student loan and fair lending offices is evidence it has abandoned its mission of protecting consumers. Kraninger indicated that protections for these groups are still a priority and a reorganization of the Bureau, which is within the Director’s discretion as granted by Congress, is helping to protect consumers. For example, the fair lending section is now within the Director’s office which, Kraninger states, gives the issue a higher profile.

Several committee members brought up the reduction of enforcement actions and restitution to consumers under Kraninger and Mulvaney. When asked to define success for the Bureau, Kraninger suggested it should be measured by the prevention of harm, not the number of complaints filed or the dollar amount of penalties. Each enforcement action, according to Kraninger, has its own set of circumstances and any settlements and consent orders are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

2. Regulation by Enforcement

While listening to some of the questioning and testimony, it appears there is not a common understanding of what “regulation by enforcement” means. The consumer advocates and several on the committee seem to think the phrase “ending regulation by enforcement” means ending enforcement actions altogether. On the other hand, Kraninger, Weltman, and other committee members used the phrase to specifically describe enforcement actions where there is no clear guidance on how to perform a certain activity, and the regulator targets the lawful practices of a single company to establish retroactive rules through consent orders.

An example of the latter is Weltman’s recollection of what happened to his firm. After the Bureau issued its CID to the firm, a two years-long investigation ensued. The Bureau ultimately presented Weltman with a proposed consent order stating that if the firm doesn’t agree to it, the Bureau will file suit. The consent order, according to Weltman, contained provisions that far exceeded what the Bureau accused the firm of doing. It was as if the CFPB was using the investigation as the means to an unrelated end. The firm refused to sign the consent order and fought the matter. Despite forcing the firm to provide over one million recordings of conversations with consumers, the CFPB dropped most of the charges related to these recordings on the eve of trial. After spending over $2 million in attorney fees to fight the case, the firm succeeded at trial.

Weltman’s testimony was accentuated by the fact that the CFPB’s action against his firm was taken under the leadership of Former Director Richard Cordray. The very collection letter the Bureau took issue with was the same letter that Cordray, as the then-Attorney General of Ohio, approved for Weltman to use for collecting on the state’s debts. In fact, it was Cordray who approved the hiring of Weltman’s firm after thorough due diligence, and indeed re-hired them a second time as well. It was mentioned that when Cordray was deposed in the Bureau’s case, he stated “I don’t know what the state of the law was then, I’m not sure what the state of the law is now.” 

Kraninger indicated that enforcement actions should be used on the bad actors who have no intention of complying with laws and regulations, not on the companies that are putting forward a good faith effort to comply. She stated that the Bureau is reviewing how to make the enforcement process more efficient.

3. The Complaints Database

Many of the consumer advocates took issue with the complaints database becoming non-public. According to Jun, the public nature of conumer complaints under Cordray’s leadership caused financial services companies to be more eager to respond. She described an instance where one of her clients was unable to get any movement by contacting the institution directly, but once a CFPB complaint was filed, the request moved along.

In response to this, Kraninger indicated that the Bureau has a responsibility to collect consumer complaints without stating that the complaint database needs to be made public. She mentioned that she is listening to consumer groups and industry on the issue and reviewing the comments provided to the Bureau’s prior RFI on the issue.

4. Accountability and Power of the Bureau and its Director

The Bureau’s structure and accountability has been a hot button issue ever since CFPB v. PHH; it was front and center at the hearing as well. Kraninger consistently stated that it is her duty to carry out the responsibilities laid out by Congress, and that it is for Congress to decide what those duties look like and to whom the Bureau and its Director should be accountable. As it stands, Congress gave the Director “tremendous authority” through its legislation and only Congress can change this.

5. The Student Loan Crisis

Everyone across the board agreed that student loans need to be a top-priority. Frotman spoke at length about the $1.5 trillion in outstanding student debt and what the Cordray-era CFPB did to combat the issue. He and several committee members noted that his former position – the student loan ombudsman – has yet to be filled six months after his resignation and that the Bureau’s 2018 report on student debt is yet to be released.

Kraninger agreed that student debt is a big issue. She stated that there is currently a job posting out for the student loan ombudsman position. According to Kraninger, Mulvaney did not fill the role because he wanted his successor to be able to make the choice. One committee member raised twice – once during Kraninger’s testimony, once during Frotman’s testimony – that the job posting only went up the day prior to the hearing. Kraninger mentioned that the 2018 report will be issued once the position is filled.

6. Controversy Over Bureau’s Payday Lending Rule

The Bureau’s decision to pull back the payday lending rule was also of controversy at the hearing. Kraninger stated that reconsideration of the rule is driven by concerns for “legal and factual sufficiency issues.” The primary section causing the rollback is the requirement for covered lenders to assess a borrower’s ability to pay. The Bureau is also reviewing the concept of allowing three pings for automatic payments. The CFPB is currently seeking comments on the payday lending rule and Kraninger mentioned she welcomes any and all comments submitted on the issue.

This caused a lot of concern among the consumer advocates. It was mentioned that delaying the payday lending rule puts the most at-risk consumers in danger. Jun said the payday lending rule was a culmination of 5.5 years of research and that nothing in the past 18 months warranted a rollback.  

7. Whether the Bureau Has Supervisory Power for Military Lending Act (MLA)

The Bureau’s decision to stop supervision of MLA compliance was a common concern by many left-leaning committee members and consumer advocates. Kraninger stated that according to her reading of the law, the Bureau currently does not have authority to conduct such supervision. However, Kraninger also mentioned that she welcomes Congress providing that authority to the Bureau and that she has provided Congress with proposed legislation that would allow this. Discussions on this issue seemed like a tennis match, with both sides believing the ball was in the other side’s court.

insideARM Perspective

Overall, while multiple important issues were discussed and fair points were made on both sides, the majority of the session provided an opportunity for grandstanding. The structure of these hearings, which allows only five minutes of questioning per member, often favors rhetorical questions, or cutting off witnesses attempting to respond. The goal simply seems to be to get a point and/or a non-answer on the record.

Finally, as Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) put it, neither side is happy with the way things are at the CFPB; Democrats are unhappy with the current direction of the Bureau and Republicans were unhappy with the direction of the Bureau under Cordray. It’s up to Congress to figure this out, since it was Congress that gave this kind of flexibility and authority to the Bureau and its Director.

[article_ad]

Debt collectors face an historic onslaught of FDCPA cases in Pennsylvania (and to a lesser extent New Jersey), all of which allege that statutory language in collection letters which tracks the FDCPA somehow violates the law.  The Courts in these cases take the position that a consumer must be apprised that a dispute must be in writing to be effective, even though this position is contrary to the plain language of the FDCPA and rulings by the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal.  This issue has been addressed extensively in insideARM, culminating in my open letter to the CFPB.

In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin directly address whether debt collectors should change notices sent into Pennsylvania and also discuss the impact of the settlement in the Crunch v. Marks decision along with the recent California out-of-statute disclosure.  

Listen to the podcast here.

[article_ad]

Editor’s Note: This article, except for the insideARM Perspective at the bottom, were written by Lauren Valenzuela, Compliance Counsel at Performant Financial Corp. and is published on insideARM with permission from the author.

On March 5th, the California Attorney General’s (AG) staff held its seventh and last public forum collecting comments for the rules it must develop for the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). It was held in a lecture hall at Stanford law school and was well attended as people lined up to get their last in-person comments heard by the AG staff. Although comments were diverse, one thing was clear: the CCPA is a perfectly imperfect law.

As previously written about, the CCPA is arguably ushering a new privacy regime that is sure to impact the ARM industry. Since the CCPA was enacted in June of 2018, at least nine other states have introduced bills that appear to be CCPA inspired in some shape or form. Since the CCPA provides unprecedented privacy rights to consumers and unprecedented obligations on businesses, questions and comments continued to swirl around the scope of those rights and obligations. Here are highlights of some issues raised at the forum.

Do Service Providers/Vendors Have to Respond to Consumer Requests?

The CCPA was designed with specific kinds of businesses in mind: those that sell/buy digital advertising, and those that collect, monitor, and sell information about consumers’ online activity, device usage, and the like. In many respects, the law is written in a way that presupposes that every business that has a consumer’s personal information has a direct relationship or nexus with the consumer. Companies who do not have a direct relationship or nexus with the consumer are struggling to understand exactly how the CCPA applies to them. For example, many companies receive consumers’ personal information from another company for a service to be provided to another business, such as the case when a vendor receives consumer information when providing a data scrub for a collection agency for example. Questions abound around what extent the CCPA applies to that vendor who does not have a direct relationship or nexus with the consumer. Will that vendor, who possess personal information about the consumer, be obligated to respond to a consumer’s request to delete their information? Multiple comments asked the AG to publish rules which provide clarify for this kind of situation.

Third Party Information Collected During Skip Tracing

One comment raised the question of how will the CCPA apply to activities such as skip tracing. The commentor explained how often when a consumer is in debt, the contact information the creditor or debt collector has for the consumer is out of date. Creditors and collectors collect information about the consumer in order to track down the consumer’s corrected or updated location information. In this process, personal information about third parties connected with or associated with the consumer is also collected and used in the process. Accordingly, to what extent will the GLBA exception provided for in the CCPA extend to activities such as skip tracing? Another comment asked for specific guidance on how the CCPA applies to those in the financial services space, and how will it impact their service providers. Overall, people in the financial services industry expressed their desire to comply with the CCPA. They just need clear guidance on what compliance looks like when applied to an industry that was seemingly not contemplated when the Act was designed.

GDPR v. CCPA

Many comments compared and contrasted the CCPA to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). For example, in contrast to how the CCPA is designed, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) makes a distinction between data “controllers” (i.e. those that “determine the purposes and means of processing personal data”) and “processors” (i.e. those who “process personal data on behalf of the controller”). There are different expectations and obligations for controllers and processors since they have different relationships with the data and data subjects. The CCPA makes no such distinction, thereby creating some confusion about how it applies to businesses who do not have a direct relationship/ or nexus with the consumer (as further explained above).

One commentor urged the AG to look to the GDPR for lessons learned. He quoted information published by authorities with oversight of GDPR. In about an eight-month span since its inception (from May 2018 to January 2019), there have been over 95,000 complaints to Data Protection Authorities under the GDPR; the most common types of complaints involve telemarketing, promotional emails, and video surveillance; there have been over 40,000 breach notifications made under GDPR; and over 200 investigations by Data Protection Authorities. The commentor said this information shows just how necessary laws like the GDPR are, and he urged the AG to adopt rules which closely follow GDPR principles. Given how large California’s population and economy are, looking to the GDPR as a rough gauge for how the CCPA may go suggests that businesses should brace for impact when it comes to consumer complaints. In a similar vein, many commenters said the AG will need assistance with enforcing the CCPA and suggested that the AG turn to county or city attorneys for enforcement help.

Verifying Requests When the Request is Not from the Consumer

Under the CCPA a consumer may authorize a third party to request information on their behalf. At least one comment focused specifically on what this means for populations which are often taken advantage of, such as the elderly. Commentors asked the AG to provide businesses with specific guidance on how to authenticate a request from a third party who is requesting information on behalf a consumer. This can prove challenging, especially if the person helping an elderly person is not related to the consumer or doesn’t have a power of attorney for example.

The Upside to the CCPA for Business

Some commentors noted that one upside to the CCPA is that it will force businesses to create structure for unstructured data. One commentor said this will in turn give businesses more control over the data they have and make it more useful. We live in a data driven economy, where data is the new currency. As such, many think big data is good data – and many have the philosophy that the more data collected, the better. The commentor said that businesses need to have better control over their data for it to be useful and one benefit of the CCPA is that it will force businesses to focus on the quality of data collected rather than on the quantity of data collected. Another commentor specifically noted that often times data collected in the ARM space is often unstructured, and how the CCPA will help the ARM industry structure unstructured data.

More Change on the Horizon

One commentor said there was a hearing in Sacramento considering an amendment to the CCPA at the same time as the AG’s last forum, and he expressed his struggle with the evolving nature of the CCPA. The CCPA was rushed through the California legislature with the understanding that there would be time to pass “fix-it” bills before its effective date of January 1, 2020. Case in point, the CCPA was amended by SB 1121 only three months after its passage. Therefore, it is no surprise that there are at least two proposed amendments to the CCPA: SB 561and AB 1130. It seems the AG will have a difficult task of promulgating rules for a law that itself may be amended in the near future.

Conclusion

At this point in time there is no clear path for how to comply with this law as it applies to many businesses. There are many questions to be answered. However, protecting a consumer’s privacy is nothing new for the ARM industry – it is one of the central tenants of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The true challenge, therefore, is how to balance a consumer’s privacy rights with a business’ obligation to be transparent about who they are, what their business purpose is, and what information they have about a consumer under the CCPA.

insideARM Perspective

The California Attorney General’s public forums, in tandem with the California Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this week brought forth a public debate about what this new privacy law — as well as the proposed privacy laws in other states — has in store for businesses and consumers alike. To review the take-aways from the other public forums, below are links to insideARM articles written by attendees:

• Summary of Calif. AG Public Forum on Consumer Privacy Act in San Francisco and CCPA Part II: What The CCPA Will Mean For Your Compliance Platform, both by Adam Gotlieb of TrueAccord
• Calif.’s Second Public Privacy Forum on CCPA in Review, by Leslie Bender of BCA Financial Services, Inc.
• California’s Fifth Consumer Privacy Act Public Forum in Review, by Lauren Valenzuela of Performant Financial Corp.

The biggest take-away from all of these meetings is that the debate is not done and much work remains to be done on both the regulator’s and business’s end. 

As if the TCPA was not scary enough, a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Texas recently recommended allowing claims to pierce the corporate veil and hold individuals personally liable to move forward. See Schumacher v. Capital Advance Solutions, LLC, No. H-18-0436, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34915 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2019). Notably, this sort of theory is in addition to the rule that corporate officers can be held directly liable for TCPA violations that they personally participate in.

The plaintiff in Schumacher alleged that despite being on the national do-not-call registry, he received calls from Capital Advance marketing business loans. But rather than simply suing the company, the plaintiff did some digging and allegedly identified two individuals as the people behind Capital Advance’s telemarketing strategy. He further alleged that the company was defunct with no assets, and simply a shell to shield the individual defendants from liability for their unlawful telemarketing strategy.

The Magistrate Judge found the allegations of personal liability sufficiently plausible to survive a motion to dismiss. In so holding, the Judge focused on two key allegations. First, the individuals created and used the company for an illegal purpose – presumably, telemarketing that violates the TCPA. Second, the corporation had no assets to satisfy any eventual liability. Piercing the corporate veil would therefore be necessary to ensure that the people who designed and profited from the calls could be held accountable.

The upshot of the decision is that it provides a potential path to holding accountable the people actually responsible for the “scourge of robocalls” referenced in nearly every TCPA complaint. As the Czar often points out, legitimate American businesses trying to market their goods and services and collect their accounts are not the ones actually responsible for modern robocalls. Instead, actual robocalls, which serve no purpose and tie-up the phone lines, primarily originate from offshore call centers. They are the entities behind calls from “the warranty department” and that threaten to have “the local sheriff arrest you” if you don’t send them money for back taxes. Schumacher provides a path to identifying and holding liable the individuals behind these type of scams.

—

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.  

Last week, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) introduced the Arbitration Fairness for Consumers Act (S. 630) in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The bill seeks to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by limiting mandatory arbitration for consumers.

In a press release issued on Friday, Sen. Brown states:

Forced arbitration is about big companies silencing victims and giving more power to corporations that already have too much power over the lives of working Americans. Ending the use of forced arbitration in student loans, credit card agreements, and employment contracts gives working Americans a fighting change against powerful special interests.

The press release cites the invocation of the Congressional Review Act in 2017 to axe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Arbitration Rule, which had a similar goal to this bill. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to review and repeal new regulations issued by federal agencies. If Congress overrules a regulation, the Congressional Review Act prohibits reissuing a substantially similar rule in the future. The Congressional Review Act only relates to regulatory rules, not to new legislations, so it would have no impact on this new bill.

The bill currently has no co-sponsors according to the Senate bill tracking website, but Sen. Brown’s press release states that it is supported by several consumer groups.

[article_ad]

insideARM Perspective

There is an interesting balance at play with arbitration in the context of debt collection. On one hand, as Sen. Brown articulates in his press release, consumers should have a tool to hold bad actors accountable. On the other, there is a litigation dilemma that debt collectors face: plaintiffs’ attorneys taking advantage of the outdated nature and gaps within the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in order to file high volumes of litigation against debt collectors over hyper-technical issues. It’s gotten to the point where legitimate debt collectors, who are in good faith trying to do right by the consumer in compliance with laws and regulations, are being forced to settle lawsuits even when it is extremely unlikely that a violation of the FDCPA occurred. This is because it is cost prohibitive to defend each lawsuit that comes through the door considering the one-sided nature of the FDCPA’s attorney fee provision. Debt collectors know this. Most, if not all, plaintiff’s counsel know this. Hopefully legislative representatives and regulators are starting to notice this too.

Currently, debt collectors can invoke on behalf of the creditor if the underlying credit agreement is drafted in a way that allows it. Removing arbitration clauses from credit agreements would likely result in more class actions (and thus higher settlement amounts) against debt collectors, including those who are trying to do the right thing. This results in a higher cost of collecting past due accounts for creditors, which could very well result in lowered access to credit for consumers. While improbable, revisiting the attorney fee provision and the strict liability nature of the FDCPA would be one way to solve for this imbalance.  

We have all heard it from putative class counsel before: “I can’t entertain a settlement offer on an individual basis.” Sure you can, as one recent decision out of the Southern District of Florida makes clear.

In Davis v. Post Univ., Inc., No. 18-81004-CIV, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17521 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2019), the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant should not be allowed to make a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment prior to a decision on whether the putative class would be certified, pursuant to Rule 23. After recognizing the difficult position the offer put Class Counsel in – sort of a conflict of interest, no? – the Court ultimately determined that the rules tolerate such maneuvers by Defendants and the Rule 68 offer should not be stricken.

The facts of the case are pretty straightforward: the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to heed stop calling requests from her and other class members. So, she sued the Defendant in a putative nationwide TCPA class action. Back in 2018, the Defendant offered – via a Rule 68 offer – to settle the case for US$10,000. Notably, the Defendant did not argue that the case was thereby mooted – a common, if not often ineffective, strategy in TCPAworld – but merely sought to take advantage of the post-judgment fee shifting paradigm the statute affords. (According to Rule 68(d), if the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, then the offer must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.)

Rather than accepting the offer, the Plaintiff moved to strike it. She argued the offer was a “bad faith attempt to defeat a class action by creating conflict between her and the putative class members,” and stating the court had jurisdiction to strike the offer under Rule 23(d) and/or its inherent power. Defendant University argued that since it had been past the 14 days since the offer had been made, it had expired, and thus, was inadmissible and moot except for purposes of fee shifting after final judgment was entered (Rule 68(d)). The Plaintiff, in response, argued that because the Motion to Strike was made while the offer was still valid, under Federal Code of Civil Procedure 6, it was still valid. The court determined that the offer had expired and was no longer valid and did not find “good cause” to extend the time for the rather odd purpose of striking it.

In analyzing these issues, the court walked through the tension that exists between Rules 68 and 23. Specifically, courts have recognized that “offers to individual named plaintiffs have the potential to undercut close court supervision of class action settlements, create conflicts of interests for named plaintiffs, and encourage premature class certification motions.” Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004). As Davis points out, courts have not taken a uniform approach to resolving this tension, but in the view of at least that one court, whatever complications may arise, the current rules create no exception on the timing of Rule 68 offers in putative class actions. Hence Davis refused to strike the offer.

So there you have it, TCPAworld – no matter how uncomfortable a Rule 68 offer may make a TCPA class representative (or her counsel), they remain perfectly viable under the federal rules.

—

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.  

The House Financial Services Committee (Committee), now led by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), will hold a hearing titled “Putting Consumers First? A Semi-Annual Review of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” on March 7. According to The Hill, Rep. Waters confirmed that Director Kathy Kraninger is a witness for this hearing.

The name of the hearing suggests that this will be an ongoing review by the Committee in its efforts to oversee the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau).

Rep. Waters has long stated that her focus as chairwoman of the Committee would be on the CFPB. Just last week, Rep. Waters sent a letter to Bureau employees denouncing Former Acting Director Mulvaney’s actions and urging staff to act as whistleblowers if they see something amiss at the Bureau. Earlier in February, Rep. Waters sent a letter to Director Kraninger questioning the lack of restitution for consumers in recent settlements the Bureau reached with financial services companies.

UNIVERSITY PARK, Fla. — National Creditors Bar Association’s (NCBA) Board of Directors has appointed Robin Cole as the association’s Acting Executive Director, following the March 1 departure of Executive Mark Dobosz. Mrs. Cole is currently NCBA’s Associate Executive Director. NCBA President Yale Levy stated, “Mark has played a critical role in the development, advancement, and success of NCBA,” and thanked him for his 5 ½ years of “dedicated service and significant accomplishments on behalf of the association.”

About Robin Cole

Robin Cole is the Acting Executive Director of National Creditors Bar Association, where her responsibilities include oversight of recruitment and retention of members, member relations, internal and external marketing and overseeing operations. Previously, Robin was an Escrow Officer and District Manager for a Fidelity National Title subsidiary for 18 years. During her time with Fidelity, she managed several offices and was responsible for the closing of the largest deal the company had done to date – a $64 million commercial loan.

[article_ad]

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Continental Service Group, Inc., dba ConServe, is a devoted community partner. By Fostering Financial Freedom® and empowering people to take control of their financial obligations in ways that preserve their dignity and self-esteem, ConServe employees help make the world a better place. Through the organization’s ongoing philanthropy program, Jeans For Charity, the ConServe’s team supports and funds the efforts of numerous agencies that strive to make a difference. As a result of the employee’s compassion and generosity, countless lives have been touched and enriched.

In the month of February, the ConServe team made donations to ABVI and the American Heart Association for the Rochester and Buffalo Regions. “Our team of caring and committed employees takes great pride in supporting a diverse group of local and national agencies that help to make life a little easier for many people who are struggling with health challenges,” said George Huyler, Vice President of Human Resources at ConServe.

“Heart diseases or strokes have or will affect all of us at some point – ourselves, family or friends – and we appreciate and rely upon community efforts that can provide awareness and vital funding to support additional activities towards a healthier community and saving more lives,” said Marc J. Natale, Executive Director of the American Heart Association for the Rochester and Buffalo Regions. “For several years, ConServe has been an organization that engages its workforce in giving back to their community in very meaningful ways. Each February their fundraising efforts benefit the American Heart Association and the proceeds go back into the community to support youth, wellness, research and quality initiatives for our Region.”

Sarah Favro, Senior Philanthropy Manager, shared, “We, at ABVI are incredibly grateful for ConServe’s continued support through their Jeans for Charity program. By the simple act of wearing jeans to work, the team at ConServe is helping children and adults who are blind or visually impaired learn valuable skills to live independent and productive lives. Thank you for making a difference!”

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 33 years, we have partnered with our Clients to give them peace of mind while simultaneously helping them achieve their goals. Ethics. Technology. Performance. Visit us online at: www.conserve-arm.com

About ConServe’s Jeans For Charity Program

ConServe’s Jeans For Charity program provides its employees with the option of participating in monthly charitable donations in exchange for wearing jeans to work. In this way, employees are provided with the opportunity to “give back” to their local communities by donating to a diverse group of organizations throughout the year. Even more generosity is shared through the organization’s “Matching Gift Program” whereupon corporate funds match all employee donations. This ongoing initiative symbolizes ConServe’s commitment to its corporate mission of helping to improve the human condition.

About Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired (ABVI)

ABVI was founded in 1911 and is an affiliate organization of Goodwill of the Finger Lakes. ABVI is the only provider of comprehensive vision rehabilitation services for people of all ages who are blind or visually impaired in Rochester and the Finger Lakes region. ABVI’s mission is to prepare and empower people who are blind or visually impaired to be self-sufficient and contribute to their families and communities. At ABVI, the belief is that even though each person experiences vision loss differently, an individual can be as independent as they want to be after a diagnosis of visual impairment. Visit them online: www.goodwillfingerlakes.org

About the American Heart Association

The American Heart Association is the nation’s oldest and largest voluntary organization dedicated to fighting heart disease and stroke. Founded by six cardiologists in 1924, it now includes more than 22.5 million volunteers and supporters who fund innovative research, fight for stronger public health policies, and provide critical tools and information to save and improve lives. Visit Rochester AHA online: heart.org/rochesterny. Visit Buffalo AHA online: heart.org/buffalo