In This Update
Congress has maintained a busy agenda. Last month, the RMAI Board of Directors met with U.S. Representative Ashley Moody (R-FL) to discuss a range of issues, including the pending confirmation of Jonathan McKernon as Director of the CFPB. The confirmation vote is expected to occur sometime in May or June.
Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee submitted a letter to Acting CFPB Director Russ Vought requesting the rescission, modification, or re-proposal of several regulatory actions. The letter specifically noted several proposals including restrictions on creditors and consumer reporting agencies concerning medical information (Regulation V), credit card penalty fees (Regulation Z), identity theft and coerced debt provisions, data broker practices under Regulation V, and more.
Related, on April 11, the CFPB announced that it is pulling back a rule that required nonbank financial services providers to register specific enforcement actions and court orders in a new federal database. Commonly referred to as the “name and shame” rule, RMAI, along with other financial services associations, sent a letter to Secretary Bessent in February (attached) requesting that the rule be rescinded. The CFPB said it will not prioritize enforcement or supervision actions against entities that fail to meet upcoming deadlines, as it pursues a new rulemaking process to either repeal or narrow the existing rule.
RMAI has also filed comments in response to two recent CFPB Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRs). The first addresses data brokers and proposes expanding the definition of entities that buy and sell sensitive personal and financial information as “consumer reporting agencies” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). View RMAI’s data broker comments here.
The second proposal concerns coerced debt and seeks to amend Regulation V in an attempt to strengthen protections for victims. View RMAI’s coerced debt comments here.
With court rulings directing the CFPB to resume its statutorily required actions, RMAI continues to maintain active engagement with CFPB staff. Recent meetings have focused on general market conditions, state-level effects from CFPB policies, and activity within the CFPB Complaint Portal.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced it will no longer examine banks for “reputation risk”—or how public opinion might affect a bank’s perceived credibility. Instead, the OCC will prioritize tangible risk factors like legal compliance and financial soundness. References to “reputation risk” will be removed from official guidance to improve clarity and transparency.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also made news by partially delaying enforcement of new TCPA revocation rules. Under the new rules, consumers may revoke consent to receive calls or texts in any “reasonable manner,” including methods deemed per se reasonable by the FCC. Originally set to take effect April 11, 2025, the FCC has granted a Limited Waiver delaying certain requirements—specifically, those mandating that revocation of consent to one message type apply to all other types—from taking effect until April 11, 2026.
RMAI monitors, tracks, and responds to legislative and regulatory activity in all 50 states as the need arises. Backed by RMAI’s State Legislative Committee and a team of state lobbyists, RMAI educates legislators and regulators about the industry and the negative impacts or unintended consequences a bill would have on businesses and consumers. RMAI has retained lobbyists in 10 states (which ties a record) so far in 2025: California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming.
If you have an interest in volunteering in RMAI’s grassroots advocacy efforts, please contact RMAI General Counsel & Senior Director of Government Affairs David Reid at (916) 779-2492 or [email protected].
Top Issue: Medical Debt
Medical debt legislation remains the most active subject matter that RMAI is lobbying on in 2025. Currently, we are tracking 131 medical debt bills in the nation and are actively lobbying bills with a strong likelihood of passage in over a dozen states. RMAI’s singular concern on these bills is the definition of “medical debt.” We are advocating for a narrow definition that ensures the definition does not include various consumer credit products, including credit cards, bank loans, and home equity lines of credit. There are 32 states with medical debt bills, including: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
Several important non-medical debt bills RMAI is engaged on include:
California SB 706 – This bill would: (1) prohibit a charged-off consumer debt from being sold or assigned more than one year after the debt was charged off; (2) require a charge-off creditor to notify the consumer when the creditor sells or assigns a charged-off consumer debt to a debt buyer; (3) prohibit an action from being brought to recover a charged-off consumer debt within two years after the date the creditor provided a notice of default or delinquency to the consumer or 90 days after the debt was charged off, whichever occurs earlier; and (4) prohibits a debt buyer from bringing an action to recover a charged-off consumer debt after one year from the date the debt was charged off. [RMAI is in strong opposition, along with a large coalition within the financial services industry. This bill is the first, to RMAI’s knowledge, to reduce the statute of limitations to below 3 years on a consumer debt. This bill would essentially impose a 90-day SOL on banks and a one-year SOL on debt buyers. RMAI through our lobbyist is in active discussions with the author’s office.]
Massachusetts SB 735 – This bill would, among other things: (1) increase the garnishment exemption from 50x state minimum wage to 65x state minimum wage; (2) reduce the statute of limitations (SOL) in an action for the collection of a consumer debt from six to five years; (3) prohibit the revival of a debt that is beyond the statute of limitations through the making of a payment; and (4) reduce the time allowed to take action to enforce a judgment from 20 to 10 years but allows renewing the judgment for an additional 10 years. If passed, the bill would take effect on January 1, 2026. [RMAI has been opposing this bill since 2014 when it was first introduced. After eight years of negotiations and countless amendments, RMAI, other industry participants, and consumer advocates agreed to amendments that resulted in a neutral position by the industry. Among items removed from the bill through RMAI’s efforts from its 2014 introduction: (a) 90x minimum wage garnishment exemption; (b) expungement of the debt once the SOL expires; (c) reducing the SOL from six to three years; (d) preventing the tolling of the SOL through a payment prior to the expiration of SOL; (e) reducing the enforcement of a judgment from 20 to 5 years with no renewal; (f) applying the bill’s provisions to real property; and (g) once the consumer exceeds the exemption threshold, only being able to garnish on income above the threshold.]
Nevada SB 142 – This bill would, among other things: (1) amend the wage garnishment laws to exempt up to 90% of weekly disposable income; (2) exempt $5,000 in a personal bank account, (3) require a CPI adjustment to exemptions every three years; and (4) increase the homestead exemption to equity in property up to $605,000 and outlines conditions under which proceeds from the sale of a homestead remain exempt. [RMAI strongly opposes the wage and bank garnishment provisions. RMAI has a lobbyist in NV which is actively engaging on the bill.]
New Mexico HB 60 – This bill would establish a regulatory framework for AI systems in New Mexico, focusing on preventing algorithmic discrimination, requiring detailed documentation and risk assessments, and empowering the Department of Justice to enforce compliance. [RMAI was in opposition to the bill due to the text containing a private right of action and the lack of an appropriate exemption for the financial services industry. A diverse coalition, including RMAI, was able to prevent the bills passage during the 2025 legislative session.]
New York AB 5537 / SB 4271 – This bill would establish a state-wide debt collector license in New York under the authority of the Department of Financial Services (the same agency that licenses the banking and insurance industries and which for the last 11 years has promulgated rules for debt collectors). [RMAI has been working with the legislature on amendments to various versions of this bill for years and has been successful in obtaining most of our requested amendments in the current draft.]
New York SB 6300 – This bill would expunge consumer credit debt after the 3-year statute of limitations expires. [RMAI is in strong opposition. The only states with this type of law are Mississippi and Wisconsin (NC for debt buyers). RMAI has a lobbyist in NY who is actively engaging on the bill.]
Oregon HB 3865 – This bill would mandate that any person making a solicitation call or sending a text must clearly identify themselves, the purpose of the solicitation, and the entity they represent within the first 10 seconds of the call or within the initial text message. It would also restrict solicitation activities to the hours between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. and limit the number of solicitations to three per 24-hour period. Solicitation would mean “a call to a subscriber, with or without the use of an automatic dialing and announcing device, and a transmission of a communication to the subscriber for the purpose of encouraging the subscriber to make a donation or engage in a transaction for real estate, goods or services.” The exempt activities do not include debt collection. [RMAI is working with an industry coalition to seek an express exemption for debt collection. Clearly, if debt collection were to be included, it would result in FDCPA violations.]
South Carolina SB 277 – This bill would allow 25 percent of earnings to be garnished. [RMAI is in support of this legislation. Currently, South Carolina does not allow wage garnishment.]
Washington SB 5651 – This bill would increase the exemption on bank garnishments from $500 to an automatic $2,000. [The original text would have established an automatic $5,000 bank exemption but a sister trade association had negotiated a compromise which would reduce the bank garnishment to an automatic $2,000 exemption that has a CPI adjuster. RMAI remains opposed to the bill due to our long-standing position of not agreeing to any automatic exemption above $1,000.]
Fourth Circuit Holds FCRA Factual and Legal Disputes Must Be Investigated If Objectively and Readily Verifiable
Roberts v. Carter-Young, Inc., 131 F.4th 241 (4th Cir. 2025)
Believing a debt arising from a lease to be “bogus,” a consumer disputed the debt with several consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) after it appeared on her credit report. She alleged that the stated debt included false charges that were made in retaliation to her exercising her rights under the lease. The CRAs notified the collection agency that furnished information about the debt, and the agency confirmed the existence of the debt with the former landlord.
The consumer brought an action against the agency claiming it failed to conduct a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The trial court dismissed the claim, “holding that [the consumer] failed to state a claim because her disputes involved legal, not factual, matters,” and that the agency was not required under the FCRA to investigate legal disputes. The consumer appealed.
On appeal the consumer made two arguments:
- That furnishers are required under the FCRA to reasonably investigate both factual and legal disputes; and
- That any “legal dispute” exception to a furnisher’s obligation to reasonably investigate indirect disputes would not preclude [her] claim because her dispute contested “the entire factual underpinning” of the [alleged] debt, “both its existence and its amount.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit admitted that it had “yet to delineate the elements of an FCRA failure to reasonably investigate a claim.” It agreed with the trial court that there are three essential elements to a claim for failure to reasonably investigate: “(1) the plaintiff submitted a dispute over the accuracy of information on a credit report to a consumer reporting agency; (2) the agency notified the furnisher of that dispute; and (3) the furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable investigation to determine whether the disputed information can be verified.”
The Court began by questioning “what kind of inaccuracy (or incompleteness) a plaintiff must allege to satisfy the first element of a failure to investigate claim.” Reviewing cases from the Fourth, Eleventh, and Second Circuits, the Court admitted that a dispute involving “complex fact gathering and in-depth legal analysis,” or “unsettled questions of law” would not be objectively verifiable by a furnisher. However, the Court noted that “the scope of an investigation into objectively and readily verifiable information is not limited to confirming accurate transcription of a debt’s amount or the name of the debtor.”
In conclusion, the Court ruled that “both legal and factual disputes can form the basis of a § 1681s-2(b) claim, so long as they are objectively and readily verifiable.”
In this case, because the trial court did not have the benefit of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, the trial court’s ruling was vacated and remanded “to parse [the consumer’s] complaint and determine whether some or all of her allegations—regardless of whether they are legal or factual—allege an objectively and readily verifiable inaccuracy in her credit report.”
Eighth Circuit Holds Collateral Estoppel Applies to State Court Default Judgments
Delgado v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 24-1786, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6584 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025)
A collection agency purchased a consumer’s debt and brought a collection lawsuit in state court. The consumer did not respond, and a default judgment was entered against her. Notably, the collector had to show how it acquired the debt in accordance with Minn. Stat. Ann. § 548.101 which requires, among other things, evidence of the debt and complete chain of title.
The consumer did not seek reconsideration or appeal but instead filed a lawsuit against the collector in federal court alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act primarily based on the claim the collector did not own the debt. The trial court dismissed the case, and the consumer appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit began by explaining that its task was “to determine whether an issue decided by a default judgment can be ‘conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties.’” Noting that it was “bound by the decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court,” in determining the application of collateral estoppel, it cited such a case that “held that a default judgment ‘stands as . . . a final determination of the facts essential to its existence’ and is ‘conclusive upon the parties’ in later cases, even if the defendant ‘took no part’ in the proceedings.”
The Court also examined “whether a default judgment qualifies as a ‘final judgment on the merits.’” The Court admitted there was little Minnesota law on the subject, but noted “[p]urely procedural dispositions for failure to join an indispensable party or provide adequate notice are not merits determinations.” On the other hand, “[d]ismissals for failure to state a claim or on summary judgment, by contrast, are.”
Here, submission of the ownership and chain of title evidence required by Minn. Stat. Ann. § 548.101 may have been a “procedural requirement, but evaluating what it ‘establishes,’ as the statute requires is a merits determination comparable to what happens at summary judgment.”
Based on this, the Eight Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Ninth Circuit Holds Letter to Represented Consumer is Akin to Intrusion Upon Seclusion
Six v. IQ Data Int’l, Inc., 129 F.4th 630 (9th Cir. 2025)
A debt collector acquired a consumer’s debt, and the consumer sent a letter to a consumer reporting agency disputing the debt and requesting documentation. On the same day, the consumer’s attorney sent a letter of representation to the collector and requested all future correspondence be sent to him.
Several days later, the collector received the notice of dispute which generated a letter to the consumer with documentation regarding the debt. Then, the next day, the collector processed the letter from the consumer’s counsel and updated the address for future correspondence.
The consumer brought a lawsuit against the collector for violating § 1692c(a)(2) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) which prohibits communicating with a consumer “if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt…”
The trial dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the consumer “lacked Article III standing because he could not show that he had suffered an injury in fact. . . the receipt of one unwanted letter was neither akin to the traditional types of harm providing a basis for a lawsuit, nor was it the type of abusive debt collection practice that the FDCPA was intended to prevent.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained that one element required to establish Article III standing is whether the consumer suffered an “injury in fact,” and an “’injury in fact’ is ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” “To determine whether there is a concrete injury, we consider two factors: (1) Congress’s judgment and (2) a comparison of the alleged harm to harms traditionally recognized by American courts.”
On the first factor, the court concluded “that receipt of a letter from a debt collection agency is the type of infringement on privacy interests that Congress contemplated when it enacted the FDCPA. Congress’s judgment thus supports [the consumer’s] claim that he suffered a concrete injury in the context of the statute and has standing to sue.”
On the second, the Court reasoned that the consumer “clearly expressed a desire to be undisturbed by [the collector’s] communications. Thus, the consumer alleged “same kind of harm recognized at common law—an unwanted intrusion into . . . plaintiff’s peace and quiet, and the harm caused by an unwanted letter, in violation of § 1692c(a)(2), is analogous to the harm caused by intrusion upon seclusion.”
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the trial court was “best positioned to rule on the parties’ alternative arguments for summary judgment,” and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
RMAI Continues Its Advocacy
RMAI is continuing its work on the legislative front with a recent win preventing the passage of New Mexico HB 60 (which did not appropriately exempt the financial services industry from regulatory framework for AI systems in New Mexico). RMAI is currently fighting for a favorable outcome in other state proposed legislation including California SB 706, Oregon HB 3865, and Massachusetts SB 735. Your donations help us continue to actively defend your rights. We hope that you will consider donating, in any amount, to RMAI’s Legislative Fund.
If you’d like to contribute to the Legislative Fund, you can Donate Here. We will add your Company name to our list of Legislative Fund contributors on our website.
About the Legislative Fund
RMAI actively monitors and responds to state and federal measures affecting how our members do business. Your contributions to the Legislative Fund extend the reach of RMAI’s advocacy across the country where and when needed. Read more about the Legislative Fund.
2025 Webinar Programming
Register for our April 16th webinar, FCRA Regulatory Requirements and Practical Solutions for Compliance where our presenters dive into what’s new on the regulatory front for credit reporting and what hasn’t changed but remains important across furnishing, disputes, and usage.
Register for our April 29th webinar, D.C. Download: Behind the Headlines on Capital Hill, CFPB, and DOGE where our presenters will cover recent activity in Congress, updates on regulatory actions, agency agendas, and legal challenges shaping the financial services landscape.
Register for our May 8th webinar, California DFPI Examinations under the Debt Collection Licensing Act where our presenters will lead a robust discussion on preparing for a California DFPI Debt Collector Licensee (DCL) exam.
Recorded Webinar
Recorded on April 3, 2025 you can register for Understanding Right-to-Cure Notices: Impact on Debt Collection and Risks for Post-Default Assignees, in this webinar our presenters will discuss the jurisdictions that require right-to-cure notices and how those requirements impact efforts to collect debts in those states.
2025 Executive Summit Planning
RMAI is gearing up for our Executive Summit which will include two and a half (2.5) days of education. As we plan out our educational programming, we’d like to extend the opportunity to suggest a topic. We encourage you to submit your idea using this submission form. Please submit your suggestions on or before April 16, 2025.
Click here for more information on our live and recorded educational webinars. Contact Shannon Parod at [email protected] to find out more about sponsoring an RMAI webinar.
Congratulations to our new and renewed Certified Receivables Compliance Professionals (CRCP), renewed Certified Receivables Businesses (CRB), and renewed Certified Receivables Vendor (CRV)!
CRCP New
Raquel Ammons, Vance & Huffman
Steven Ballman, Unifund
Thomas Doonan, Southwood Financial
Edmon Hill, PRA Group
Ashley Mosier, EverChain
Rebecca Taylor, EverChain
CRCP Renewals
Melissa Brandjord, First Financial Asset Management
Nichole Brehmer, Stenger & Stenger
Tim Caraveo, First Credit Services
Steven Crawford, Real Time Resolutions, Inc.
Svetlana Daily, Resurgence Capital
Denise Hatem, Velocity Portfolio Group
Dana Hoover, Collection Attorneys USA
Sean Hoover, Collection Attorneys USA
Kelly Knepper-Stephens, TrueAccord
Rich Marshall, Velocity Portfolio Group
Tyler Peska, Credit Management Corporation
Rajeesh Ramakrishnan, First Credit Services
Scott Richards, Indiana Receivables
Karl Ryan, Interim Capital Group, Inc.
Daniel Schindler, Pro Forma
Brooke Teal, Invenio Financial, a Phillips & Cohen Associates Company
Jonathan Thompson, NCB Management Services
CRB Renewals
Huntington Debt Holdings
Indiana Receivables
National Credit Adjusters
CRV Renewal
EverChain
View all certified businesses and vendors.
View all certified individuals.
Resources for Individual and Business or Vendor Certification
RMAI has developed certification resources for our members who are going through the individual or business/vendor certification and aren’t sure where to start or aren’t sure how long the process takes. These easy to follow and game-oriented resources will help you feel less intimidated and more confident in how to obtain certification at any level.
Individual Certification
Business/Vendor Certification
- 7 Steps to Earn the Certified Receivables Business (CRB) Designation
- 7 Steps to Earn the Certified Receivables Vendor (CRV) Designation
- CRB Timeline
View our full list of certification resources.
RMAI Digital Dispatch
RMAI’s spring publication is just around the corner! Launching May 1st, the Digital Dispatch will be available to all primary contacts as well as additional membership representatives as a digital flipbook. You can add additional membership representatives by completing the online registration form. Keep an eye out for RMAI’s email distribution and website!
Refer a Friend
Do you know someone who would make a great RMAI member? Share the perks of your RMAI membership and direct them towards our online application! Offer to be a reference for them to streamline their application process. Now through June 30th, 2025, new member applicants will receive 25% off member dues! For questions or resources regarding membership, contact Nicole Canon.
Get Involved
Looking to dig deeper into RMAI? Getting involved maximizes your membership through intimate industry connections and exposure. Involvement opportunities range from sponsorship and advertising to publishing an article! Publications and blog posts from our members allow them to highlight personal experiences, industry trends and developments, profiles, and news. Contact Aurora Sain to submit news, articles, and press releases. For advertisement opportunities, contact Cheryl Nelson.
Welcome, New Members
- American Financial Management, Inc. | IL
- Arum Global | Nottingham
- Capital Mitigation Services, LLC. | NY
For a complete list of RMAI members, login to check out the Member Directory.
LEGISLATIVE FUND CONTRIBUTORS APRIL 1, 2024 – APRIL 11, 2025
DIAMOND
Absolute Resolutions Corp.
Cavalry Investments, LLC
Resurgent Holdings, LLC
Second Round, LP
Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.
TITANIUM
Financial Recovery Services, Inc.
Garnet Capital Advisors, LLC
TRAKAmerica
PLATINUM
Cascade365 Family of Companies
Crown Asset Management, LLC
InvestiNet, LLC
Pharus Funding, LLC
T & I Enterprises, LLC
GOLD
Rausch Sturm, LLP
SILVER
Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC
DebtNext Software, LLC
Firstsource
Halsted Financial Services, LLC
Klima, Peters & Daly, P.A.
National Credit Adjusters, LLC
Velo Law Office
BRONZE
Central Portfolio Control, Inc
Corporate Advisory Solutions, LLC
D & A Services, LLC
Equabli, Inc
Resurgence Capital, LLC
Security Credit Services, LLC
Superlative RM
BRASS
AAA Lenders Inc
Acctcorp International, Inc.
Advancial Federal Credit Union
AgreeYa Solutions, Inc.
Aldridge Pite Haan, LLP
ARM Compliance Business Solutions LLC
ARS National Services, Inc.
Balbec Capital
Basham & Scott, LLC
Bayview Solutions, LLC
CBE Companies
Cedar Global Solutions LLC dba Remote Scouts
Channel Payments, Inc.
CMS Services
CNG/Axcess Financial Services, Inc.
Collection Attorneys USA LLC
CompuMail Information Systems
ConServe
Cornerstone Licensing Services
Couch Lambert
Credit Control, LLC
Credit Corp Solutions Inc.
FDR Alliance LLC
FLOCK Specialty Finance
FMA Alliance, Ltd
ForgiveCo PBC Inc
Frost Echols LLC
G. Reynolds Sims & Associates, P.C.
Genesis Recovery Services
Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C.
Grassy Sprain Group, Inc
Guglielmo & Associates, PLLC
InterProse
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC
Kino Financial Co., LLC
Law Office of James R. Vaughan, P.C.
Mandarich Law Group LLP
Markoff Law LLC
Moss & Barnett, P.A.
Mountain Peak Law Group, PC
National Debt Holdings, LLC
NCB Management Services, Inc.
Nelson & Kennard
NICE
Nuvei Technologies Inc.
PaymentVision (Autoscribe)
PCI Group Inc.
Phin Solutions, LLC
Plaza Services
Premium Asset Recovery Corp (PARC)
Pressler, Felt and Warshaw, LLP
RAS LaVrar LLC
Reassigned Numbers Database (RND)
Remitter
Revenue Assistance Corporation dba Revenue Group
Robinson Hoover & Fudge, PLLC
SAM – Solutions for Account Management, Inc.
Scott & Associates, PC
Shepherd Outsourcing, LLC
Slovin & Associates
Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP
SMS Financial, LLC
Stillman Law Office
Stone Creek Financial Inc.
Stone, Higgs & Drexler
Suttell & Hammer
The Cadle Company
The Oakes Law Firm, LLC
Tratta
Tromberg, Morris & Partners, PLLC
Troutman Pepper Locke
Troy Capital, LLC
Vertican Technologies, Inc.
Womble Bond Dickinson
Zarzaur & Schwartz, P.C.
OTHER
Actuate Law, LLC
Alliance Credit Services, Inc.
Bedard Law Group, P.C.
C & E Acquisition Group, LLC
Caddis Funding LLC
CASA Receivables Management, LLC
Ceteris Portfolio Services LLC dba J.J. Marshall & Associates
Cohen & Cohen Law, LLC
Complete Credit Solutions, Inc.
Consuegra & Duffy, PLLC
Convoke, Inc.
Credit Management Corporation
Denali Capital, LLC
First Credit Services, Inc
First Financial Asset Management, Inc. (FFAM 360)
Harvest Strategy Group, Inc.
Hudson Cook, LLP
Indiana Receivables, Inc.
Kaleo Legal
London & London
Martin Golden Lyons Watts Morgan PLLC
MauriceWutscher LLP
McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC
National Recovery Associates, Inc.
National Recovery Solutions, LLC
Payment Savvy, LLC
Pro Forma Inc
SIMM Associates, Inc.
Sonnek & Goldblatt, Ltd.
Tavelli Co., Inc. dba Tavco Credit Services
The Law Offices of Ronald S. Canter, LLC
Vargo & Janson, P.C.