DULUTH, Ga.– Crown
Asset Management has announced eight promotions:

Shawn Bradley has been promoted from Vice
President of Finance to Senior Vice President of Finance & Corporate
Strategy. Shawn joined Crown in 2020 as the Director of Finance and has
overseen a handful of Crown strategies including capital markets, prospective
portfolio acquisition evaluation, mergers and acquisitions, due diligence, deal
structuring, legal documentation, and relationship management. In his expanded
role, he will lead the strategic efforts in finance, business development,
information technology, human resources, accounting, and project management.
Shawn has extensive experience in banking and finance, which includes lending
to direct and indirect non-bank financial institutions focused on near-prime
and non-prime consumer markets, commercial finance companies, as well as
distressed debt investors. 

[article_ad]

Rebekah Luebcke has been promoted from Director of
Operations to Vice President of Operations. Rebekah joined Crown Asset
Management in 2017, bringing over 15 years of customer service and management
experience in the accounts receivable management and payment processing
industries. She has overseen many of Crown’s extensive daily activities and
will work as VP of Operations to ensure Crown is operating at maximum
efficiency. 

Leah Ri has been promoted from Senior Financial
Analyst to Manager of Financial Planning and Analysis. Leah joined the Crown Asset
Management team in 2017 as a Financial Analyst and
has been instrumental in a wide array of financial obligations including
budgeting, forecasting, and building financial models. Her deep understanding
of Crown’s internal financial processes will be key to her managerial
responsibilities moving forward. 

Sarah Pittman has been promoted from Legal
Services Lead to Legal Services Manager. Sarah will lead a staff of
legal support staff professionals and provide documentation, research, and
additional support to the Crown Legal Services team. Her unique skills and
experience will help her further develop the associates on her team, create
efficiencies in the team’s processes, and bring additional value to the
organization.

Laura Powers has been promoted from Staff
Accountant to Senior Accountant. Laura has performed exceptionally well
in all tasks assigned to her since she joined the company in 2017 and will now
regulate and authenticate financial transactions and reporting generated by
Crown’s servicers and other external customers. 

Sharn Fuller joined CAM in November 2018 and
has been with the Audit and Compliance Department since January 2020. Sharn’s
recent promotion from Compliance Auditor to Senior Compliance Auditor
will allow Sharn to be immersed in additional aspects of the department’s responsibilities
and deliverables while continuing to support CAM’s ongoing compliance goals and
objectives. 

Bryce Thomas and Rhonda Bradtmueller
have been promoted from Business Analysts to Senior IT Analysts. Crown’s
history is supplemented by rigorous data and predictive analysis efforts led by
team members like Bryce and Rhonda. In their new roles, they will ensure that
each unique and proprietary system Crown offers can be tailored to each
client’s needs while providing the documentation and management needed to
complete assigned projects. 

Brian
Williams, Crown Asset Management Owner and CEO stated:
“Acknowledging each of these team members’ dedication, commitment to Crown, and
excellence in their department is something I take pride in as CEO. Their
contributions make Crown who we are. I am proud of the work each of our team
members puts in each day, and I look forward to our continued growth in 2022
with these eight team members in further leadership positions.” 

About Crown Asset Management

Founded in 2004, Crown
Asset Management, LLC, is a professional receivables management firm that outsources
purchased accounts to a nationwide, proprietary network of collection agencies
and law firms. Utilizing a cutting-edge predictive analytical model during
pre-purchase portfolio due diligence, their team focuses on achieving
appropriate financial returns while ensuring the best possible experience for
consumers. They are an RMAI
Certified Receivables Business headquartered in Duluth, GA.

SACRMENTO, Calif. —  The RMAI Certification Council announces the adoption of version 10.0 of the Receivables Management Certification Program (RMCP) after a seven-month development and review process. Several significant enhancements were added to the program in version 10.0, including requiring Certified Businesses to:

• Maintain a cyber-crime insurance policy.
• Maintain a policy which prevents discriminatory collection practices.
• Notate consumer communication restrictions and transmit those restrictions when appropriate.
• Obtain specific data and documents when purchasing or selling installment loans (fintech and traditional).

“As we launch version 10.0 of our national certification program, its humbling to see how far RMAI has come in the development of uniform standards of best practice for the receivables management industry,” said Adam Parks, President of the Receivables Management Association International (RMAI).

“As we prepare for our second decade of advancing comprehensive and uniform standards of best practice, RMAI’s focus will remain on the consumers we protect and the industry we proudly serve. The statistics demonstrate the value RMAI certification brings to both audiences as we continue to see reduced complaints and litigation against RMAI certified businesses.”

For more information on RMAI certification for receivable businesses and individuals, please visit the RMAI website at www.rmaintl.org/certification. For more information on version 10.0, view our program overview.

About Receivables Management Association International

Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) is a nonprofit trade association representing more than 590 businesses that support the purchase, sale, and collection of performing and nonperforming receivables on the secondary market. The RMAI Receivables Management Certification Program and Code of Ethics set the global standard within the receivables industry due to the rigorous uniform standards of best practice which focus on protecting consumers.

More information about RMAI is available at www.rmaintl.org.

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

HOUSTON, TX — LTD Financial Services, L.P., a full service accounts receivable management and business process outsourcing company, is excited to launch its new and improved consumer website. The new website provides consumers additional flexibility and self-serve functionality with the ability to:

• Negotiate and make payment arrangements
• Update contact information including mailing address, email address, and phone numbers
• Update preferred contact method(s)
• View payment history
• Review past letters
• Notify of a dispute
• Request additional account information

 [article_ad]

“We have put great thought and resources into the development of our new site.” Says David John, CEO of LTD. “Our goal is to provide consumers with a portal that gives them access to their account 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In addition to the freedom to manage their account at any time of the day or night, some consumers prefer to self-manage without interacting with an agent. This site gives them that ability, and more.”

Visit the updated LTD website at www.ltdfin.com.

About LTD Financial Services, L.P.

Established in 1993, LTD Financial Services, L.P. is a nationally recognized provider of ARM and BPO services. LTD’s solutions consistently deliver quality customer experiences and superior financial results for our clients through leading technology, omni-channel communications, and data driven decisions in a fully compliant, customer-centric culture. Our approach places our clients first in every aspect of our relationship including Customer Solutions, Care, Collections, Recovery, Compliance, Controls, Communication, and Accountability.

A Pennsylvania district court has ruled that a company that provides reports based on a search of public records is a “consumer reporting agency” (CRA) as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In McGrath v. Credit Lenders Service Agency, Inc., the plaintiffs applied to a bank for a loan to refinance their home mortgage.  The bank engaged Credit Lenders Service Agency (CLSA) to conduct a public records search on the plaintiffs and provide a report.  To prepare a report, CLSA subcontracted with people who go to various record repositories (e.g. directories of open judgments and municipal liens maintained by courts) to conduct a physical search and send the results to CLSA.  CLSA’s report to the bank about the plaintiffs erroneously listed outstanding civil judgments against them.  The plaintiffs claimed that they contacted CLSA which refused to investigate the alleged inaccuracies.

The plaintiffs sued CLSA, alleging that it violated the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy when preparing a consumer report (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b)) and by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the plaintiffs’ dispute (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681i(a)).  CLSA moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was not subject to the FCRA as a matter of law because it was not a CRA and did not supply “consumer reports” within the meaning of the FCRA.  It also asserted that even if it was subject to the FCRA, no reasonable juror could find that it violated either FCRA provision.

As an initial matter, the district court found that CLSA was a CRA.  In doing so, it rejected CLSA’s argument that an entity can only be a CRA if it issues “consumer reports.”  Based on the FCRA definitions of the terms CRA and “consumer report,” the district court concluded that to be a CRA, an entity does not actually have to furnish “consumer reports” but instead must act for the purpose of furnishing “consumer reports.”  Thus, an entity could be a CRA if it acted for the purpose of furnishing “consumer reports” even if it never produced a report or the intended report is determined not to be a “consumer report.”  Stated differently, “the Court does not need to determine that an entity actually produced a ‘consumer report’ to find that it is a [CRA].”  However, the court indicated that the opposite was not true, meaning the FCRA’s definition of “consumer report” does require the report to come from a CRA.

Turning to the issue of whether CLSA was a CRA, the court found that CLSA’s operations satisfied the elements of the FCRA definition.  In addition to receiving monetary fees and using interstate commerce, the other elements of the CRA definition require an entity to regularly engage in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.  CLSA argued that it was not “assembling” information but had only accessed records of open judgments on the court’s database that were assembled by the court.  The court rejected this argument, finding that the judgments were only a portion of the report, which included other information such as outstanding mortgages, home value, and other outstanding liens.  According to the court, “assembling” does not require the changing of contents but only requires the gathering and grouping of information.  The court also found that CLSA’s reports were “consumer reports” for purposes of the FCRA.

With regard to CLSA’s alleged FCRA violations, the court was unwilling to grant summary judgment in favor of CLSA on the plaintiffs’ claim that CLSA had negligently violated Section 1681e(b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy when preparing consumer reports.  Among the elements that must be established to prove a Section 1681e(b) violation is that inaccurate information was included in a consumer report due to a CRA’s failure to follow reasonable procedures.  The district court refused to follow the Seventh Circuit’s 1994 decision in Henson v. CSC Credit Services, which held that as a matter of law, a CRA does not violate the FCRA by reporting inaccurate information obtained from a court’s judgment docket absent prior notice from the consumer that the information may be inaccurate.  According to the court, Third Circuit decisions had made clear that the reasonableness of a CRA’s procedures is a jury question and because there was evidence that CLSA took no steps to check the accuracy of the information it provides to customers and CLSA had not introduced evidence to show that its procedures were reasonable, a reasonable jury could find its procedures were unreasonable.

The court did, however, grant summary judgment in favor of CLSA on the plaintiffs’ claims that CLSA had willfully violated Section 1681e(b) and that it had negligently and willfully violated Section 1681i(a) by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the plaintiffs’ dispute.  According to the court, based on Henson and the absence of direct Third Circuit precedent, CLSA’s reading of Section 1681e(b) could have reasonably found support in the courts.  As a result, its Section 1681e(b) violation was not willful.  As to the plaintiffs’ Section 1681i(a) claims, the court found that because there was no evidence in the record that the plaintiffs had notified CLSA of an error and requested a reinvestigation, there was no genuine dispute of material fact whether CLSA had negligently or willfully failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.

LAKE FOREST, Ill. –Transworld Systems Inc. (TSI), the largest provider of analytics and technology-enabled accounts receivable management (ARM) solutions in the United States and Canada announced today that it received a Training APEX Award from Training magazine. The Training Apex Award recognizes organizations with the most successful learning and development programs worldwide. 

The TSI Training Program was ranked as the 8th best training and development program globally, and is the only ARM company to place among the top 10 for the second consecutive year. This achievement highlights TSI’s steadfast dedication to continuous employee learning and development, its agility and innovation in delivering its training via digital engagement, and its passionate commitment to the current and future success of its people. For over 20 years, Training magazine has recognized organizations that provide best-in-class employee training and development. 

“TSI is proud to once again be included in the top 10 of awardees and to be recognized by Training magazine as the leader in employee development and training in the ARM industry. This award validates the progress our team has made to make TSI a great place to work, as well as our commitment to providing our employees with the tools they need to grow and succeed,” said Joseph Laughlin, Chief Executive Officer.

About Transworld Systems Inc.

TSI is the largest technology-enabled provider of Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) solutions in the United States. The Company’s solutions include debt collections, customer relationship management and business process outsourcing. Additionally, TSI owns UAS, a technology-enabled primary loan servicer for student loans. TSI differentiates itself with its collection analytics, digital collections technology, global scale and an industry-leading Compliance Management System. Its clients include Fortune 100 corporations, financial institutions, hospitals, government agencies, property management and small and medium-sized businesses. To learn more, please visit tsico.com.

There are currently over 40 comprehensive consumer data privacy bills pending in the states as we enter the third month (for most states) of the legislative sessions.

Although the dread of the often-referenced “patchwork” of dissimilar state privacy laws still looms, the good news is that the majority of the bills are not moving, moving slowly, or dead.  Nevertheless, there are some that are working their way toward the finish line, and a few that appear to have come back from the dead, as explained below.

The following chart shows how various privacy legislation components included in 47 bills measure up:

You can download a chart here that provides details about each of the 47 bills and their current legislative status.

WHAT WAS NEW IN FEBRUARY

Arizona HB 2790 was introduced Feb. 8, but apparently did not make it past the committee deadline of Feb. 18.

Florida HB 9 was amended by committee substitute and reported favorably out of the House Commerce Committee on Feb. 10, and out of the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 23.

[article_ad]

Indiana SB 358 was amended in the Senate, passed, and voted favorably out of the House committee on Feb. 17. Notably, the amendment removed the private right of action contained in the original version.

Iowa House Study Bill 674 passed in committee and was refiled on Feb. 23, as HF 2506 and SF 2208.

Massachusetts H 136, S 46, S 50, and S 220, all carryovers from 2021, morphed into S 2687 on Feb. 14.

Mississippi SB 2330died in committee Feb. 1.

Ohio HB 376 was amended by committee substitute on Feb. 9.  Among other changes, the legislation now provides a consumer the right to request correction of inaccurate data.  This chart explains the numerous other differences between the introduced bill and the substitute.

Oklahoma HB 2969, the Oklahoma Computer Data Privacy Act, was introduced on Feb. 7, and amended by committee substitute on Feb. 21.  The substitute adds a prohibition against selling a consumer’s personal information to a third party without the consumer’s consent, i.e., “opt in.”

Utah SB 227 is a fast-moving bill that was introduced Feb. 17 and passed in the Senate and transmitted to the House on Feb. 25.  The original bill provided a consumer the right to: 1)  confirm processing of their personal data; 2) obtain information regarding the categories of personal data collected; 3) correct inaccurate data; 4) delete personal data provided by the consumer; 5) obtain a copy of the personal data provided by the consumer; and 6) opt-out of processing if for targeted advertising or the sale of the personal data.  In part, the first and second bill substitutes deleted the second and third rights and added the right to access the personal data.  The Utah legislative session is scheduled to conclude March 4.

Washington HB 1433 has had no movement and is presumed dead.

On Feb. 17, SB 5062 was placed in the “Senate Rules ‘X’ file,” which is described as where bills go “if they are no longer eligible for consideration.”  However, on Feb. 24, it was moved to the “Rules White Sheet,” which is described as “where bills are sent immediately after being passed out of a standing committee,” and “is, more or less, a review calendar.”

HB 1850 was assigned to the Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary which voted it out on Feb. 2 as amended by a committee substitute. It then was referred to the Committee on Appropriations (avoiding a deadline faced by the CRJ Committee). On Feb. 28, Appropriations adopted a second substitute that, in part:

1. Strikes all provisions relating to consumer rights;
2. Retains provisions relating to the Consumer Data Privacy Commission;
3. Removes requirements that the Commission conduct data protection audits of controllers and processors;
4. Provides a private right of action only if: a) the Commission has determined in an administrative hearing that a violation occurred; and b) the consumer suffered demonstrable economic loss or physical harm.

Notably, the second substitute provides that the act does not become effective unless the engrossed second substitute for SB 5062 becomes law by July 1, 2022.

Wisconsin AB 957 was introduced Feb. 3, SB 957 and SB 977 were introduced Feb. 9, and AB 1050 was introduced Feb. 17.  Of the four, only AB 957 is moving, having passed as amended by the Assembly on Feb. 23 and referred to committee in the Senate.

WHAT’S AHEAD IN MARCH

Of the states with pending privacy legislation, six have crossover deadlines in March, and others have various committee and floor deadlines.  There are a handful of bills that are now in the second chamber or poised to be there soon, so it is possible that March could bring the passage of another comprehensive state data privacy law.

Earlier this month the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) very quietly revised its Debt Collection Examination Procedure. While much of the exam manual remained the same, the updated version incorporates Reg F. 

Additions

Here is a non-exhaustive list of the new topics covered in the exam procedure:

• Communicating via emails/text messages (Page 11- Module 2, question 2)
• Communicating through social media (Page 11- Module 2, question 3)
• The limited content message (Page 12- Module 2, question 9)
• Inconvenience as defined in Reg F (Page 13- Module 2, question 12a)
• Call frequency  (Page 15 – Module 2, question 15)
• Representations to consumers regarding credit scores (Page 17- Module 2, question 21)
• Debt parking (Page 23- Module 3, question 10)
• The model validation notice (Page 27- Module 4- question 1-8)
• Opt-outs (Page 31, Module 4, question 12, 13)

[article_ad]

Worth noting- Affiliates and third-party section

The affiliates and third-party relationships section of the exam manual can be found on page 6. This section does not limit the type of affiliates or third-party agents debt collectors can use. Instead, the updated exam procedure remains largely the same as the previous procedure. During the course of an exam, the CFPB will look at whether the debt collector:

• Reviews the provider’s policies and procedures 
• Provides clear expectations that the service provider follows applicable law
• Establishes internal controls
• Takes prompt action to address problems

insideARM Perspective:

Reg F went into effect on November 30, 2021. Releasing the updated exam procedure is a good indication from the CFPB that they expect debt collectors to have concluded all of their Reg F implementations.  We’ve been trying to stress the importance of a risk and gap analysis; this release makes it clear the time is now. ARM entities should review the exam procedure to make sure they have covered everything the CFPB expects them to have covered. 

It’s also worth noting that despite the ongoing Hunstein saga, the CFPB did not limit its questions regarding service providers to only those specifically mentioned in the FDCPA. Instead, the exam procedure seems to solidify what everyone pre-Hunstein already knew- using vendors isn’t a violation of the FDCPA.