FTC’s Brill to Step Down

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced yesterday the retirement of Julie Brill, who served as a Commissioner of the FTC since April 2010.

From the very beginning of her FTC tenure, Commissioner Brill pushed the collections industry to adopt more consumer-friendly practices. In her first year on the job, she even expressed her personal opinion that any collection activities on out-of-stat debt should be banned outright.

Prior to joining the FTC, Commissioner Brill served as the Senior Deputy Attorney General and Chief of Consumer Protection and Antitrust for the North Carolina Department of Justice.  Before that, she worked as an Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection and Antitrust for the State of Vermont for over 20 years. Commissioner Brill brought her pro-consumer voice to the FTC in 2010, when appointed by President Obama.

“Commissioner Brill has been an unwavering advocate for consumers and competition during her six-year tenure at the Federal Trade Commission,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “Commissioner Brill’s expertise in consumer protection, privacy, and antitrust has been an asset to the agency, and we are sorry to see her leave. We wish her well on her next steps.”

She will remain in her position with the FTC until the end of this month, at which point she plans to enter private practice in Washington, D.C.

FTC’s Brill to Step Down
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/ftcs-brill-to-step-down/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

FCC Commissioners Testimony Reveals Fractured and Partisan Process

Yesterday, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology for the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on “Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission” (FCC). All five FCC commissioners were called to and did testify.

Background

Before getting into yesterday’s hearing it is important to understand the FCC. The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Unless filling an unexpired term, each commissioner is appointed for a five-year term. The President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party.

The current makeup of the FCC is as follows:

 Chairman: Tom Wheeler (D)

Commissioner: Jessica Rosenworcel (D)

Commissioner: Mignon Clyburn (D)

Commissioner: Michael O’Rielly (R)

Commissioner: Ajit Pai (R)

 The Testimony

The testimony was diverse and revealing. Chairman Wheeler touched on various policies, proposed rules, and enforcement actions the FCC has taken or has announced plans to take during recent months.

Commissioner Clyburn spoke to the importance of not only competition, but also community. “The FCC and Congress have a duty to expand broadband connectivity and close the digital divide through programs like Lifeline”, she said. Per the FCC website, “Lifeline” is a program that provides a discount on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers to ensure that all Americans have the opportunities and security that phone service brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family and emergency services.

Commissioner Rosenworcel supported Clyburn’s comments about Lifeline. She talked about how the future relies on “connectivity” and how bridging the “homework gap” remains one of her highest priorities.

However, the two Republican Commissioners chose to focus on how the current FCC operates. Both testified that the current FCC “process” was not working.

Commissioner Pai was highly critical of how the FCC has been run under Chairman Wheeler’s tenure. He pointed to the following:

“First, the FCC continues to be run in a partisan fashion. Since December 2013, there have been 20 separate party-line votes at our monthly meetings.  That’s twice as many as under Chairmen Martin, Copps, Genachowski, and Clyburn combined.  Proposals from Republican Commissioners have been roundly rejected as crossing a “red line,” even when an identical proposal from a Democratic Commissioner is accepted later on.  And requests by Republican Commissioners to increase transparency or amend a proposal are routinely ignored, which means the Commission regularly adopts orders without any official response to our requests.

Second, collaboration has fallen by the wayside.  During my first eighteen months on the job, every Commissioner worked to reach consensus.  That maximized the chance that every Commissioner could vote for a proposal or order.  Under Chairman Genachowski and Chairwoman Clyburn, we reached consensus 89.5% of the time on FCC meeting items.  I can assure you that we did not always start out in the same place.  But we worked hard to reach agreements that everyone could live with.  And we usually succeeded.

It’s far different now.  All too often, softening the rough edges of an order to make it more palatable is off the table.  Narrowing the scope of a decision to achieve unanimity is rejected outright.  Indeed, consensus among the Commissioners no longer appears to be a goal.  Instead, the “rule of three” is the new norm.  Unsurprisingly, then, unanimity has precipitously dropped at the agency.  Commissioners have been able to reach consensus on only 56.4% of our monthly votes during Chairman Wheeler’s tenure.

Third, the FCC continues to choose opacity over transparency.  The decisions we make impact hundreds of millions of Americans and thousands of small businesses.  And yet to the public, to Congress, and even to the Commissioners at the FCC, the agency’s work remains a black box.

Commissioner O’Rielly’s testimony had a similar theme. He too spoke about a broken process and lack of transparency.

“Today, Commissioners do work together on certain issues – and I hopefully play some role in our bipartisan agreements.  However, the Commission is often fragmented, which is especially noticeable for the larger ticket items.  For instance, while I maintain a voting record of approximately 90 percent with the Chairman for circulated items, the percentage of open meeting items on which I have agreed is only approximately 65 percent.  That is up slightly from 62 percent a year ago, likely due to a recent effort to include one non-controversial item on each month’s agenda.  A significant reason for disagreements can be traced to procedural fouls that are unnecessary, unwise and harmful.

The Commission continues doing business as usual with all the corresponding difficulties.  We continue to see problems month after month stemming from the fact that the proposals we vote on are hidden from the public until it is too late for meaningful input.  In order to address this concern, it has now become a ritual for the Chairman’s office to release a one- or two-page, often inaccurate or misleading, “fact” sheet purporting to describe the details of each major proposal, along with one or more prose versions of the same talking points in the form of a press statement or blog post.

These hand-selected tidbits comprise all the information stakeholders, including the American people, are given every month when attempting to engage with the Commission on complex issues from expanding Lifeline to setting the rules for the upcoming spectrum incentive auction.  The predictable result is confusion and misdirection, frustrating all involved, sometimes including the Chairman himself.

Further, the timing of when Commissioners actually get documents is problematic as it has become standard procedure for the Chairman’s staff to provide off-the-record briefings to favored reporters days before an item is circulated to Commissioners. The day of circulation, a major press roll-out occurs complete with press releases, blogs and “fact” sheets, but the actual document under consideration doesn’t hit my inbox until hours later, sometimes late at night. Meanwhile the press is reporting that the item has circulated and asking for comment.”

insideARM Perspective

Based on the testimony of O’Rielly and Pai, it appears that Chairman Wheeler regularly ignores the 2 Republicans on the commission, denies them access to basic information and refuses any negotiation whatsoever. That is not a healthy environment for collaboration.

Though not specifically referenced by Commissioners O’Rielly and Pai, their prepared remarks provide great insight into how and why of the FCC’s July, 2015 TCPA Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order. That Order showed little sign of compromise or collaboration.

FCC Commissioners Testimony Reveals Fractured and Partisan Process
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/fcc-commissioners-testimony-reveals-fractured-and-partisan-process/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

CFPB Report Highlights High Rate of Collection Complaints from Servicemembers

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) released its annual report from the Office of Servicemember Affairs highlighting complaints submitted in 2015 and CFPB enforcement actions that directly impacted the military community. The report found that servicemembers have been submitting debt collection complaints to the Bureau at nearly twice the rate of non-military consumers. In addition, the report highlights CFPB enforcement actions that have returned over $5 million to the pockets of servicemembers and their families in 2015.

CFPB Director Richard Cordray commented on the report: “The complaints highlighted in today’s report show that members of the military continue to have serious problems when it comes to debt collection. The Bureau will continue to closely monitor complaints from servicemembers to ensure our brave men and women are getting the protection they deserve.”

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act established the Office of Servicemember Affairs as part of the CFPB to address specific consumer protection concerns for the nation’s military community. A priority of the office is to monitor the consumer complaints sent to the Bureau by servicemembers. Per the report, in 2015, the CFPB received over 19,000 complaints from members of the military community. The top three most complained about products or services were debt collection, mortgages, and credit reporting.

Some of the specific financial issues servicemembers complained about in 2015 included:

  • Debt collection: Roughly 44 percent of the debt collection complaints submitted by servicemembers involved companies’ attempts to collect debt that the servicemember believes is not owed. Additionally, servicemembers often complained that debt collectors would contact their commanding officers and threaten their security clearance over a debt issue. A frequent complaint from veterans had to do with debt collectors attempting to collect debts on medical bills that should have been covered through their VA health insurance.
  • Mortgages: In 2015, servicemembers submitted roughly 2,800 complaints related to mortgages. The most common type of mortgage complaint involved challenges servicemembers faced when they were unable to make payments, such as problems with loan modifications, collections, and foreclosures. In particular, servicemembers continued to experience servicing issues when they had to relocate following a permanent change of station order sending them from one base to another.
  • Credit Reporting: Members of the military community submitted approximately 2,200 credit reporting complaints to the Bureau in 2015. The large majority—72 percent—of these complaints involved incorrect information on credit reports. For members of the military, complaints about incorrect information often resulted after the servicemember returned home from deployment or temporary duty stations to find fraudulent activity on their credit report. When servicemembers have attempted to fix the situation, they often experienced difficulty seeking a successful resolution with creditors.

Enforcement Actions

In 2015, the CFPB took four enforcement actions that particularly impacted servicemembers and their families.

1)     In October 2015, the Bureau brought an enforcement action against Security National Automotive Acceptance Company (SNAAC), an Ohio-based auto lender, for engaging in abusive debt collection practices against servicemembers and their families. In the action, SNAAC was ordered to refund over $2 million to affected consumers.

2)     In April, the CFPB ordered Fort Knox National Company and Military Assistance Company, a military allotment processor, to provide over $3 million in redress for charging servicemembers fees without providing the proper disclosures.

3)     Also in April, the Bureau took action against RMK Financial Corp. for deceptive mortgage advertising practices when the company ran ads that led consumers to believe the company was affiliated with the U.S. government.

4)     The CFPB also took action against NewDay Financial in February 2015, for deceiving consumers about a veterans’ organization’s endorsement of NewDay products, and for paying kickbacks for customer referrals. Through these actions, servicemembers received over $5 million in relief.

The full report can be found here.

insideARM Perspective

It is absolutely mind-boggling that the rate of collection complaints to the CFPB for service members is nearly twice the rate of non-military consumers. It is an embarrassment to the ARM industry that members of the military are having these types of issues. That statistic speaks to a need for better training on the handling of military member accounts at ARM companies. Clearly there is an issue that still needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed quickly. Training, auditing, re-training and more auditing are the tools that are needed. Repeat offenders need to be ex-employees. Perhaps the recruitment and hiring of ex-military personnel at ARM businesses would help solve the problem.

Our industry needs to be better.

Our servicemembers deserve better.

 

CFPB Report Highlights High Rate of Collection Complaints from Servicemembers
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/cfpb-report-highlights-high-rate-of-collection-complaints-from-servicemembers/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Final Judgment Entered in CFPB Case Against Morgan Drexen; Attorneys Found in Contempt

In 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued debt settlement company Morgan Drexen for collecting illegal “upfront fees” for debt settlement services and for running deceptive advertisements. Shortly before that, the company filed suit against the CFPB, challenging the agency’s investigative authority.  The CFPB prevailed in its lawsuit: in April 2015, a federal court ruled against Morgan Drexen and found that the company misled the court and falsified evidence during the lawsuit. Morgan Drexen went out of business in late June 2015 after filing for bankruptcy.

This week, at the request of the CFPB, a federal district court entered a final judgment against debt relief company.

The court found that the company violated federal law, prohibited Morgan Drexen from collecting any further fees from its customers, and ordered it to pay $132,882,488 in restitution and a $40 million civil penalty. This decision follows a stipulated final judgment against Morgan Drexen’s president and chief executive officer, Walter Ledda, that the court approved in October. The court found that Ledda violated federal law, banned him from providing debt relief services, and required him to pay restitution and a civil money penalty.

Final Judgments Against Ledda and Morgan Drexen

The court’s March 16, 2016 final judgment against Morgan Drexen memorializes its June 2015 conclusion that the company violated federal law, and its ruling that the company may not collect any more advance fees for debt relief services, or any more fees at all from its customers. The final judgment also orders Morgan Drexen to:

  • Pay $132,882,488 in restitution: Morgan Drexen is required to pay this amount to borrowers who enrolled in the company’s program between Oct. 27, 2010, when the federal ban on upfront fees went into effect, and June 18, 2015, when Morgan Drexen stopped selling debt relief services.
  • Pay a $40 million civil penalty: Morgan Drexen must pay this amount to the CFPB’s civil penalty fund.

Because Morgan Drexen has declared bankruptcy, any payment of this judgment will occur through the bankruptcy process.

The court’s October 2015 final judgment against Walter Ledda contains similar findings and injunctive and monetary relief. In that judgment, the court found that Ledda and Morgan Drexen violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Dodd-Frank Act by charging consumers illegal upfront fees for debtrelief services, and by making deceptive statements about the company’s services. Under the terms of the final judgment, Ledda will:

  • Pay $500,000 to the CFPB for consumer redress: The final judgment requires Ledda to pay $500,000 to the CFPB for use in providing redress to consumers.
  • Surrender additional assets: The final judgment requires Ledda to turn over additional assets to the Morgan Drexen bankruptcy estate.
  • Pay a civil money penalty: Ledda is required to pay $1 to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. The Bureau did not require Ledda to pay a larger penalty because of his limited financial resources after repaying harmed consumers.
  • Exit the debt relief industry: The court has permanently banned Ledda from providing debt relief services or otherwise working in the debt relief industry.

The court also imposed a $99 million equitable money judgment and $20 million civil money penalty against Ledda, both of which are in large part suspended based on Ledda’s inability to pay. If Ledda fails to make any of the required payments or turn over his assets, or if the CFPB discovers Ledda misrepresented his financial condition, the full $99 million judgment and $20 million penalty will become due immediately.

Attorneys Found In Contempt

After the court’s June 2015 order prohibiting Morgan Drexen from charging fees for debt relief services, two attorneys, Vincent Howard and Lawrence Williamson, took the reins of Morgan Drexen and continued the company’s unlawful conduct. Among other things, Howard and Williamson:

  • Hired more than 50 former Morgan Drexen employees, including the company’s former owner and chief technology officer, and former chief financial officer;
  • Continued to charge fees to harmed consumers pursuant to the same contracts under which Morgan Drexen charged the consumers unlawful fees; and
  • Provided consumers misleading information about Morgan Drexen’s shut-down and contradicted the advice in court-approved letters about how consumers could protect themselves in light of Morgan Drexen’s unlawful conduct.

When the CFPB learned of Howard and Williamson’s actions, it filed a motion requesting that the court hold the attorneys and their law firms in contempt of the court’s order. In October 2015, the court found that the attorneys’ conduct had violated the court’s order, and held the attorneys and their law firms in contempt. The court ordered the attorneys to return all payments they had received from former Morgan Drexen consumers since the court’s June 2015 decision to ban Morgan Drexen from receiving such fees. The court also ruled that the attorneys will be fined $10,000 a day for each day they continue to accept fees from former Morgan Drexen consumers. The attorneys have appealed this order.

A copy of the court’s final judgment against Morgan Drexen and Walter Ledda can be found here.

A copy of the civil minutes regarding the judgment can be found here.

A copy of the court’s contempt order concerning the attorneys can be found here.

Final Judgment Entered in CFPB Case Against Morgan Drexen; Attorneys Found in Contempt
http://www.insidearm.com/cfpb/final-judgment-entered-in-cfpb-case-against-morgan-drexen-attorneys-found-in-contempt/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Bank of America Debt Securitization Case is Actually Round Two

Yesterday insideARM reported on a putative class action lawsuit filed against Bank of America alleging that the bank’s practice of filing lawsuits on their accounts violated the FDCPA since the accounts were previously “securitized.”

After that article was published we heard from two longtime insideARM contributors, Don Maurice from the Maurice Wutscher LLP law firm and Joann Needleman from the ClarkHill PLC law firm. Both wanted insideARM to be aware of a previous case involving the same Plaintiff’s attorney and similar (though not exactly the same) facts, but basically the same allegations and same legal theory. Maurice & Needleman PC was counsel for one of the defendants in the prior case.

The prior case, (Scott v. Bank of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 13-4689) was a Court of Appeals decision from November 3, 2014.  In that case the facts were only slightly different.  Bank of America had securitized the account. After the account went into default the account in question was sold to a debt buyer and the debt buyer had initiated a collection lawsuit on the account. Plaintiff then sued the bank and the debt buyer.   Plaintiff’s underlying theory was that Bank of America had nothing to transfer to debt buyer once it securitized the receivables.

In the District Court proceeding Bank of America and the debt buyer had moved to dismiss Scott’s Amended Complaint, arguing that the critical premise on which Scott’s claims rely—that once a credit card company securitizes the receivables of a credit card account, it no longer retains an ownership interest in the account—was incorrect. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Scott appealed that dismissal. In a “non-precedential opinion” the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in all respects.

Editor’s Note: Generally, non-precedential opinions may not be cited in briefs submitted to the Court. 

The decision can be found here.

insideARM Perspective

As noted in yesterday’s article, it will be interesting to track this case.  The non-precedential nature of the earlier opinion only means that defendants in the current case cannot cite the Scott opinion in any briefs they might submit to the court in this action. The defendants can, however, cite all of the cases they previously cited in their earlier briefs in the Scott case. The defendant’s arguments succeeded once. One wonders whether plaintiff’s counsel will make new and/or different arguments in an effort to obtain a different result.

insideARM asked Maurice for his perspective on this latest case.  He responded, “The problem with the plaintiff’s theory, at least in Scott, was that it ignored the terms of the securitization documents. First, only the receivable rights to an account are securitized, not the entire rights to the account. Thus, the creditor remains the owner of the account, but not the receivable rights. Second, once an account becomes in default, the receivables are ejected from the securitization and revert back to the creditor. So when the creditor goes to collect (or sell) a defaulted account, it has all rights, title and interest to the account.”

Bank of America Debt Securitization Case is Actually Round Two
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/credit-card-accounts-receivable/charge-off/bank-of-america-debt-securitization-case-is-actually-round-two/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Payday Lending, Exemption for Community Banks, Arbitration and Ally Were the Hot Topics During CFPB Director Cordray’s Testimony Before Congress

Payday Lending, Exemption for Community Banks, Arbitration and Ally Were the Hot Topics During CFPB Director Cordray’s Testimony Before Congress
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/collection-laws-regulations/collection-laws-and-regulations/payday-lending-exemption-for-community-banks-arbitration-and-ally-were-the-hot-topics-during-cfpb-director-cordrays-testimony-before-congress/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Executive Change: Commercial Debt Recovery Firm Johnson Morgan & White Names New Senior VP of Sales

BOCA RATON, Fla. – Johnson, Morgan & White (JM&W), a privately-held commercial debt recovery firm, has named Cliff Sanders to Senior Vice President of Sales. Sanders brings more than two decades’ experience in business development and sales leadership in the credit and collections category. He most recently was Executive Vice President with Altus Global Trade Solutions.

Cliff Sanders

Cliff Sanders

“It’s a real coup to land someone of Cliff’s stature. He’s a time-tested and seasoned sales executive well known and highly regarded throughout the credit and collections industry,” said Robert G. Cooper, President and CEO of Johnson, Morgan & White. “As our company continues to grow, Cliff is just the professional to help lead our customer-centric charge into new markets.”

Over the course of his career, Sanders has improved processes that have motivated sales teams, stimulated sustained growth, revenue, and profitability, all while mitigating risk.

“I’m at home at a boutique agency like Johnson Morgan & White, where experience and client relationships share equal importance,” he says. “Together, we will take a fragmented industry ripe for a true leader and create a one-stop shop for clients who otherwise get lost at a big firm.”

At Coface Collections / Altus GTS, Sanders helped develop, launch, and market various products, and was Team Lead on the company’s 2014 rebranding. In the preceding decade, he rose from Sales Training Manager to Client Sales Manager to National Sales Manager, assisting Altus GTS in achieving double-digit revenue growth and landing some of the largest companies in the world. He began in the industry as Director of Sales with Milliken and Michaels, where he was Top-5 in sales four of his five years there.

About Johnson, Morgan & White

Johnson, Morgan & White (www.jmandw.com) has extensive expertise in corporate debt recovery. The firm is one of world’s leading businesses and forensic collection companies and has collected, on behalf of its U.S.- and internationally-based clients, from businesses throughout the United States, Eastern and Western Europe, Asia, and the Middle East and Gulf States. JMW is a certified and bonded business-to-business collection company with the goal of recovering debts while protecting clients’ customer relationships. Various investigation techniques are employed to legally investigate and track corporate debtor’s money activity, including digital and public document investigations.

Executive Change: Commercial Debt Recovery Firm Johnson Morgan & White Names New Senior VP of Sales

http://www.insidearm.com/daily/collections-jobs-news/executive-change-commercial-debt-recovery-firm-johnson-morgan-white-names-new-senior-vp-of-sales/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Executive Change: Lyle Roda Joins DCA as VP Business Development

TORONTO, Ontario – Debt Control Agency (DCA), a leading national provider of collections and receivables management services announces a key addition to the executive team.

Mohsen Monavari, President & CEO said, “We are pleased to announce that Lyle Roda has joined the DCA team as Vice President of Business Development.”

Mr. Roda brings more than 20 years of industry experience in sales and operations to his new role and will provide great depth to DCA’s leadership. He will be in charge of managing and expanding DCA’s sales and client support teams. DCA continues to be very successful as a boutique agency highly focused on client retention through market leading service and results. The company is poised to expand its service offerings to open new opportunities as a part of the its growth plan and strategy. Mr. Roda will spearhead this effort.

“I look forward to working with Lyle to build on DCA’s strengths as we expand our services in the market and continue to earn our reputation as the supplier of choice to our clients,” added Monavari.

About DCA

Debt Control Agency (DCA) is a leading national provider of collections and receivables management services.  With contact centres in Ontario and Quebec, DCA is headquartered in Toronto. We are nationally licensed and provide consumer and commercial debt recovery services to our clients in various industries.

DCA is results driven and focused on servicing our clients with the highest collection recovery rate while maintaining the best standards of customer responsiveness in the industry. Keeping this in mind, we continually invest in the company and our greatest asset, our people. DCA staff is thoroughly trained during on-boarding as well as continuously subjected to standardized testing and monitoring. Our senior management team has held key positions within the collections industry and have over 100 years combined experienced.

For more information about DCA visit: www.debtcontrolagency.com

 

Executive Change: Lyle Roda Joins DCA as VP Business Development
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/collections-jobs-news/executive-change-lyle-roda-joins-dca-as-vp-business-development/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Bank of America Hit With Class Action Over Debt Collection Litigation on Securitized Accounts

A putative class action suit was filed yesterday against Bank of America (B of A) alleging that that the bank has been improperly suing consumers who owe on credit card debt after the bank had previously “sold” that debt via a securitization of a pool of accounts and thereby relinquishing its ownership interest in the account. The case, Willard v. Bank of America, et. al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01199) was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  A copy of the Complaint can be found here.

The Allegations

The case was brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p (FDCPA); and the statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA), 73 P.S. §§2270.1-227. The complaint requests actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, statutory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other appropriate relief from defendants.

The summary allegations are that B of A has “engaged in a scheme whereby they issue credit cards to consumers and, then seek to collect the amounts allegedly due from each card holder’s use of the credit card, despite the fact that B of A has sold, transferred, assigned or otherwise conveyed its beneficial interest in each consumer’s credit card account to a trust as part of a financial transaction known as a credit card securitization. Having relinquished its beneficial interest, B of A no longer has a debt obligation owed to it by Plaintiff or the Class.”

The complaint alleges very specific elements of the B of A “sale” process from account creation through securitization; a process that shows an account moving via “sale” from Bank of America to Bank of America Consumer Credit Services to Bank of America Funding LLC to Wilmington Trust Company.

The complaint then alleges, “Wilmington Trust Company then underwrites a bond offering. The bonds are placed into tranches from senior debt to junior debt and each tranche has a certain amount of assets. Bank of America Consumer Credit Services still services the account by sending out bills and accepts payment, but Bank of America has given up ownership rights as required to Wilmington Trust Company, therefore Bank of America and its entities have given up its rights to sue its cardholders when they default on their debt.”

Finally, the complaint alleges, “Despite the fact that Bank of America intentionally relinquished its beneficial interest in Bank of America accounts, it has continued to pursue, along with its affiliates and the defendant law firms, collection lawsuits against Plaintiffs and members of the Class to recover the obligations allegedly owed on the Bank of America accounts.”

Plaintiff’s attorneys are seeking class certification.

insideARM Perspective

This case demands continued scrutiny by all banks and the ARM industry. The securitization of pools of accounts is a wide-spread process. The case has the potential to dramatically impact future collection practices regarding securitized accounts.  While this particular case involves litigation on accounts that were securitized, any “sale” of those accounts could be subject to the same argument.

In fact, earlier this year, on January 26th, insideARM published an article about another class action case that involved similar allegations involving securitized accounts.  However, in that case, (Cox, et al v. Sherman Capital LLC, et al. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1:12-cv-01654-TWP-MJD) a federal judge in Indianapolis ruled that a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the United States Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”) against Sherman Financial Group, one of the country’s largest debt buyers, could not proceed as a class action because circumstances vary too much among the class members.

Because of the high stakes involved, the Sherman case was vigorously pursued by Plaintiff’s attorney and subject to often contentious interplay among the attorneys involved.  It is likely that this new case will have similar activity.

Bank of America Hit With Class Action Over Debt Collection Litigation on Securitized Accounts
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/credit-card-accounts-receivable/credit-card-receivables/bank-of-america-hit-with-class-action-over-debt-collection-litigation-on-securitized-accounts/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Executive Change: Stellar Recovery, Inc. Announces New Director of Client Services

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Stellar Recovery, Inc. is pleased to announce that Kim Harvey has joined the Stellar team as Director of Client Services.  Kim has over 26 years working in the legal collections industry in Georgia and Florida.  She has a strong Client Services background as well as extensive management experience.

Before joining Stellar Recovery Kim was with Debski & Associates, P.A., a Jacksonville, Florida legal collections law firm where she was the Director of Operations. Kim was responsible for the oversight of over 30 staff members including the legal administration team, collections team, and accounting staff.  Kim was also instrumental in on-boarding the firm’s second largest client, a national bank.

Prior to Debski & Associates, P.A., Kim was with Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, LLP in Atlanta, Georgia where she was the Legal Manager and responsible for the firm’s Georgia legal division.  She was responsible for bringing several large bankcard clients to the firm.

Kim’s accomplishments include:

  • SE Regional Performance Award for a national bank
  • Operational Excellence Award from the National Attorney Network
  • Speaker, Operations Management Conference Track for National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys (NARCA)

As Director of Client Services, Kim will be overseeing the Client Services team as well as leading the Stellar Recovery Administrative team.

Kim’s initiatives for Stellar Recovery include:

  • Provide superior support to our clients and their initiatives
  • Developing consistent communication between Client Services and all Executive Teams regarding new clients, existing client requirements, and updates to client processes
  • Finding efficiencies in Client Services and Administrative Processes
  • Identifying opportunities for automation to streamline processes

Keith Jones, CMO, commented “we are excited to have Kim on board; her experience and the initiatives she is putting in place will make sure we provide our clients with Best in Class Service and Support.”

Stellar Recovery, Inc. Corporate Headquarters is located in Jacksonville, Florida, with a satellite office in Kalispell, Montana.  Please visit our website at www.stellarrecoveryinc.com.

Executive Change: Stellar Recovery, Inc. Announces New Director of Client Services
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/collections-jobs-news/executive-change-stellar-recovery-inc-announces-new-director-of-client-services/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management