Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2015 Prof. Dalié Jiménez; Univ. of Connecticut School of Law Nick Wooten; Nick Wooten LLC Alane A. Becket; Becket & Lee LLC Buying Claims in Consumer Cases.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "2015 Prof. Dalié Jiménez; Univ. of Connecticut School of Law Nick Wooten; Nick Wooten LLC Alane A. Becket; Becket & Lee LLC Buying Claims in Consumer Cases."— Presentation transcript:

1 2015 Prof. Dalié Jiménez; Univ. of Connecticut School of Law Nick Wooten; Nick Wooten LLC Alane A. Becket; Becket & Lee LLC Buying Claims in Consumer Cases Fontainebleau Miami Beach

2 Debt Sales: Background & issues 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 What if the debt is sold? 7

8 Assignment $$$ Assignment $$$ Assignment $$$ 8

9 What information is transferred at the sale? 9

10 Spreadsheet likely to contain Name, address, SSN (98%); Account number (100%); Outstanding balance (100%); Date account opened (97%); Date of last payment (90%); Date of charge-off (83%); Amount owed at charge-off (72%); Debtor’s home phone number (70%) FTC Debt Buyer Report 34-35 10

11 Critical facts may be missing Principal amount (missing in 89%); Interest rate charged (missing in 70%); Date of first default (missing in 65%); Name of the original creditor (missing in 54%); Finance charges and fees (missing in 63%); and Dispute history (“typically not provided”) FTC Debt Buyer Report 34-35 11

12 What documentation is transferred? 12

13 Percent of accounts FTC Debt Buyer Report T-11, T-15 13

14 Availability of documents after sale is limited Short amount of time to request docs Specified max number of docs After a threshold, docs cost $$ Seller has 30- 60 days to respond No guarantees from seller FTC Debt Buyer Report 26-27 14

15 How do subsequent debt buyers obtain documents? 15

16 Assignment $$$ Assignment $$$ Assignment $$$ Docs 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 Legal and Regulatory Response Changes to Bankruptcy Rules: 2011 For individual debtors: –itemized statement of the interest, fees, expenses –petition date accounting for secured claims –sanctions for failure to comply 25

26 Legal and Regulatory Response Changes to Bankruptcy Rules: 2012 For open end or revolving credit: –the name of the entity from whom the creditor purchased the account; –the name of the entity to whom the debt was owed at the time of an account holder’s last transaction on the account; –the date of an account holder’s last transaction; –the date of the last payment on the account; and –the date on which the account was charged to profit and loss. 26

27 Legal and Regulatory Response 2012: –Writing not required but must be made available Advisory Committee Note: –Because a claim of this type may have been sold one or more times prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy, the debtor may not recognize the name of the person filing the proof of claim. Disclosure of the information required by paragraph (3) will assist the debtor in associating the claim with a known account. It will also provide a basis for assessing the timeliness of the claim. 27

28 The CFPB Effect 2010: –Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act authorized formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau CFPB mission: –to make current rules in the financial services marketplace more effective; –to consistently and fairly enforce rules; and –to empower consumers to take more control over their financial lives. 28

29 The CFPB’s Authority Supervise, examine and enforce covered persons – banks, non-banks and larger market participants To “prescribe rules and issue orders and guidance, as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasion thereof.” 29

30 The CFPB’s Authority Power to Investigate –Civil Investigation Demand –Examination: by deposition or onsite –Enforcement: by consent or suit Bulletins, white papers or research – policy making without formal rule making Examination Manuals Regulation 30

31 CFPB Priorities Mortgage Servicing and Origination Student Loan Servicing and Origination Debt Collection Medical Debt Payday/Small Dollar Lending Auto Lending and Financing Arbitration Clauses Pre-paid Cards 31

32 Third Party Oversight Covered persons must: –Conduct due diligence to determine that service providers understand and are capable of complying with federal consumer protection laws –Review service provider policies and procedures and ensure training of its employees –Ensure contracts reflect these expectations and expressly provide for termination if not followed –Have on-going monitoring of service provider –Take prompt action, including termination, if monitoring reveals issues 32

33 Coordination with Other Regulators Exchange of information with prudential regulators Informal understanding with state Attorneys General regarding investigations and enforcement actions ― CFPB and 47 state AGs brought claim against financial institution resulting in multi-million dollar settlement for over 500,000 consumers, CFPB, states and the OCC ― Supplies extra resources that CFPB lacks in investigations and enforcement ― Complaint portal used by state and federal prudential regulators as well as state AGs 33

34 The CFPB Effect Significant fines and penalties for improper practices Changes to business model for debt sales Changes to collection procedures Changes to compliance management Changes to vendor management 34

35 35 After CRAWFORD VS. LVNV What is a “Crawford Claim” The scope of the problem –Anecdotal Evidence of filings before and after Crawford –Focus of problem (Debt Buyers)

36 36 After CRAWFORD VS. LVNV The Circuit Split on the Issue –Simmons v. Roundup Funding, LLC, 622 F. 3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010); Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, 276 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002) –Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F. 3d 1254 (11 th Cir. 2014); Simon v. FIA Card Services, NA, 732 F. 3d 259 (3 rd Cir. 2013); Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726 (7 th Cir. 2004)

37 37 After CRAWFORD VS. LVNV The Legal Issue –“implicit repeal” or “repeal by implication” Discussed in-depth by Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726 (7 th Cir. 2004).

38 38 After CRAWFORD VS. LVNV Two key points: –When two federal statutes address the same subject in different ways, the right question is whether one implicitly repeals the other. –It takes either irreconcilable conflict between the statutes or a clearly expressed legislative decision that one replaces the other.


Download ppt "2015 Prof. Dalié Jiménez; Univ. of Connecticut School of Law Nick Wooten; Nick Wooten LLC Alane A. Becket; Becket & Lee LLC Buying Claims in Consumer Cases."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google