RMAI Update October 2025

The government shutdown, now in its third week, remains unresolved as Democrats and Republicans continue to exchange blame. During this time, the Trump administration confirmed that layoffs affecting more than 4,000 federal employees have begun, though some reduction-in-force notices issued at the CDC were later withdrawn after being sent in error.

Despite the shutdown, the CFPB informed employees that it will continue operating because its funding is independent of congressional appropriations. Even so, the Bureau acknowledged mounting budget pressures and cautioned that position cuts or limited furloughs may become necessary if funding constraints persist.

The Justice Department has also been affected. Department attorneys asked the D.C. Circuit Court to delay their response in the lawsuit challenging mass firings at the CFPB, noting that the lapse in appropriations prevents them from working. They requested an extension equal to the duration of the shutdown plus 14 additional days once operations resume, a request the plaintiffs did not oppose.

While most federal activity remains stalled, RMAI continues its advocacy work. RMAI recently submitted comments to the CFPB recommending that the Bureau replace its revenue-based definition of “larger participants” in the debt collection market with a risk-based model that better evaluates compliance practices and consumer protection measures. RMAI emphasized that the receivables management industry already operates under robust federal and state oversight, reinforced by private rights of action and regular audits. The comments also highlighted RMAI’s Receivables Management Certification Program, which establishes higher standards than required by law and now includes more than 500 certified businesses, representing the majority of the secondary debt market.

RMAI also sent a letter to FTC Director Chris Mufarrige addressing the growing number of identity theft disputes. The letter explained that while certified companies follow strict protocols to investigate fraud claims and remove verified fraudulent accounts, many recent disputes are incomplete or inaccurate. RMAI noted that the rise in questionable claims may be coming from misleading online “fin-fluencers” and certain for-profit credit repair organizations that encourage consumers to file unsupported identity theft affidavits, draining resources from legitimate victims and undermining consumer protection efforts.

Meanwhile, the FCC has proposed eliminating and streamlining several long-standing rules under the TCPA and Do-Not-Call framework. The proposal would remove provisions governing call abandonment and company-specific DNC obligations while simplifying caller identification and consent revocation requirements. According to the FCC, these updates are intended to modernize robocall regulations, reduce compliance burdens, and align oversight with current telecommunications practices.

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. 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].

RMAI will have a comprehensive State Legislative Report of legislation which has been adopted in the Fall Magazine. Be sure to read the article when it arrives in a few weeks.

While state legislatures tend to be relatively quiet in the Fall, here are a few bills we are continuing to engage on:

Massachusetts SB 2559 – 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 had 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.]

New York AB 8427-A/SB 8416 (NY Attorney General Program Bill) – This bill would enact the “Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act” to expand the attorney general’s ability to protect New Yorkers from unfair, deceptive and abusive business practices. [RMAI was in strong opposition due to the bill containing: (1) an enhanced private right of action where the consumer does not have to show an actual injury and (2) a public registry of all UDAAP settlements. RMAI has had three very constructive meetings with the New York Attorney General’s Office in the past month explaining our opposition. Through RMAI’s efforts and that of the New York Business Council, of which RMAI is a member, the bill was amended to resolve the concerns raised by RMAI. Removed from the version which passed the Senate was language that: (i) allowed a third party to bring a private right of action on behalf of others without their consent, (ii) allowed the plaintiff to bring suit without actual injury, (iii) created a public registry, and (iv) created higher penalties for a private right of action. With these changes, the bill is generally in line with existing UDAAP laws from other states. This bill has passed both houses of the legislature and is awaiting to be sent to the Governor.]

Pennsylvania HB 1731 – This bill would adopt the Consumer Debt Collection Fairness Act which would: (1) require any legal action to collect consumer debt to include detailed documentation, including the name of the original creditor, the last four digits of the account number, an itemized statement of the amount owed, proof of ownership of the debt, and a copy of the original contract or charge-off statement; (2) reduce the statute of limitations from 4 to 3 years on consumer debt; (3) prohibit courts from entering default judgments against consumers unless the plaintiff provides an affidavit of facts based on personal knowledge, all required documentation, and proof of proper service and notification of consumer rights; and (4) require a consumer notice informing consumers of their rights to dispute the debt, request documentation, and seek legal assistance. [RMAI is opposed to and closely monitoring this legislation. As of now, we believe this bill only has a 50/50 chance of passing the House but a very low chance of Senate passage. Should intel suggest otherwise, RMAI is prepared to step in with active opposition.]

Puerto Rico PS 255 [Hyperlink is not provided as the text is in Spanish] – This bill would adopt an overly broad definition of “medical debt” which would apply to any medical debt charged to a general-purpose credit card. [RMAI opposes any medical debt bill that imposes medical debt restrictions on financial service products. We insist the definition apply only to debt owed to a medical provider. The Puerto Rican Legislature operates in Spanish, including the website and bill text, which adds a certain challenge in lobbying efforts. However, RMAI has retained a strong and highly respected bilingual lobbying firm to assist the association in obtaining amendments.]

Third Circuit Affirms Attorney Sanctions for Deceptive Letters
Sofaly v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., Nos. 24-2639, 24-2640, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24427 (3d Cir. Sep. 22, 2025)

A law firm “hatched a scheme” in which it would obtain clients’ permission to send letters disputing their debts to their respective collection agencies.  The template letter contained mostly “gibberish,” but “nestled amid this nonsense the form letter obliquely referred to disputing a potential debt: ‘I saw that your company is reporting that I owe you a sum of money, but I just don’t think that is correct.’”

In fact, the letters were written and signed by the firm’s paralegal, and the goal was to prevent debt collectors, and their software, from recognizing that hidden in the rambling handwritten letters were disputes, thereby potentially causing them to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to report the debts as disputed. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8).

The law firm filed lawsuits in state court on behalf of two consumers against a collection agency alleging that despite having received the disputes, the agency failed to report the debts as disputed.  Copies of the handwritten letters were attached to the complaints.  The collection agency removed the matters to federal court, and the trial court dismissed the cases, awarded attorney’s fees to the collection agency, and ordered the lawyers in the firm “to write apology letters and attach the court’s sanction order to future debt-dispute cases filed in the district.” The law firm and several of its lawyers appealed.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit began by noting Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes sanctioning lawyers who file pleadings for an ‘improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1).” It then addressed the three arguments the lawyers made in opposition to sanctions.

First, the lawyers argued that their clients signed agency agreements authorizing them to send the letters.  The Court found that irrelevant because “[a]gency law lets lawyers act for their clients, but it does not license deception.”

Second, the lawyers argued that Rule 11 did not apply to “pre-litigation correspondence.”  The Court noted that the letters were not pre-litigation documents because “[t]he complaints expressly incorporated both letters and attached them as exhibits.”

Third, the lawyers argued Rule 11 shouldn’t apply because they filed the complaints in state court rather than federal court.  The Court explained “they forfeited this argument by not raising it below.”  Also, “Rule 11 covers even ‘later advocating’ a paper that was ‘presented to the court’ if ‘after a notice of removal is filed, a party urges in federal court the allegations of a pleading filed in state court.’”

The Court of Appeals also determined that the trial court “was equally right to use its inherent authority to award attorney’s fees and costs,” and that “[t]he Supreme Court has long recognized federal courts’ inherent power to protect the integrity of their proceedings.”  Here, “the lawyers had intentionally engineered a scheme to mislead [the collection agency] into violating the FDCPA—misleading the court into believing that the letters were legitimate attempts to dispute a debt in the process.”

The Court concluded:

Actions have consequences. [The lawyers] used their clients to bring contrived lawsuits and make easy money. Even after the District Court sanctioned them and their firm, they still refuse to admit that they lied. Instead, they deflect blame, gesturing at “mistakes” and “imprecise drafting” to avoid accountability. We expect more from members of the bar, and we will affirm the sanctions.

Third Circuit Affirms Rejection of FDCPA Continuing Violation Theory
Moore v. Herrmann, No. 24-1456, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24806 (3d Cir. Sep. 25, 2025)

A consumer defaulted on a loan and the creditor retained a law firm to file a collection action for the remaining balance.  The law firm filed the lawsuit in New Jersey state court five years after the default occurred; the statute of limitations was four years.  The court entered a default judgment against the consumer.  The law firm sought a writ of execution and garnished the consumer’s wages.

The consumer then filed a lawsuit against the law firm and one of its attorneys in state court alleging they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by filing a lawsuit on a time-barred debt.  The law firm and attorney removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the matter as untimely because the consumer filed her complaint sixteen months after the filing of the debt collection action.  The statute of limitations for claims under the FDCPA is one year. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).

The consumer “then amended her complaint to emphasize seven debt collection practices that occurred within the year preceding her FDCPA suit.” Examples included moving for default judgment, applying for a writ of execution, and the garnishments.  Although she invoked the continuing violation theory by arguing “that her suit was timely because [the law firm’s] post-complaint conduct, which occurred within the statute of limitations, formed part of a single course of unlawful conduct,” the trial court granted the law firm’s motion to dismiss.  The consumer appealed.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, noted that the consumer was attempting to argue that the entire collection lawsuit constituted a single, continuing violation of the FDCPA.  The Court explained that “no federal appellate court has extended the continuing violation theory to FDCPA claims,” and that “doing so would broaden the theory in a manner inconsistent with its original justification by allowing it to apply to discrete debt collection efforts, which unlike claims for hostile work environment, are separately actionable without relation to any other violations of the FDCPA.”

The Court also rejected the consumer’s “attempts to revive her FDCPA claim based on the post-complaint filings in the debt collection lawsuit and the subsequent wage-garnishment efforts.”  The Court acknowledged that while those collection activities did occur withing the one-year FDCPA statute of limitations, “the Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting the FDCPA as empowering a debt-owing consumer to stop the ‘communications’ inherent in an ordinary lawsuit and thereby cause an ordinary debt-collecting lawsuit to grind to a halt.” Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 296 (1995).

Based on this, the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Lack of Article III Standing
Bachiri v. Medicredit, Inc., No. 25-10356, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25645 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2025)

A consumer suffered a minor injury that required stitches and received treatment from a healthcare provider.  He returned several weeks later to have the stitches removed, but after waiting several hours he went elsewhere for the removal.  Although he received a refund for the unperformed procedure from the provider, the provider mistakenly billed him for the procedure and then sent the account to a collection agency which also sent letters.

The consumer filed a lawsuit against the provider alleging violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for attempting to collect a debt he did not owe.  The trial court dismissed the consumer’s complaint for lack of Article III standing and the consumer appealed.

In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit explained that to establish Article III standing, the consumer “needed to plead (and later support) an injury that is concrete, particularized and actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical,” and the “allegations must plausibly and clearly allege a concrete injury.”

The Court went on to observe that “a concrete injury must be de facto; that is, it must actually exist, though various intangible harms can also be concrete; chief among them are injuries with a close relationship to harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts.”

Here, the consumer claimed that disputing the debt made him “frustrated, stressed, [and] embarrassed, among other things,” and that, with the wasted time, was sufficient for Article III standing.  The Court disagreed, noting that “[t]here is no historical or common-law analog where the mere existence of inaccurate information, absent dissemination, amounts to concrete injury.”  Further, the consumer did not claim “that he spent any money disputing the debt, that he responded to the collection letters by making a payment or promising to do so, or that the reporting of this incorrect information harmed his credit score or financial prospects.”

The consumer’s claims of “frustration, stress, anxiety, surprise, shock, and embarrassment” fared no better since his “assertions of emotional distress are no more than ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical’ since [he did not identify] any actual harm that resulted from [the provider’s] wrongful collection attempts that would generate such psychological injuries.”

Affirming the dismissal of the trial court, the Eleventh Circuit also considered: 1) the disputed debt was removed from the collection account two months before [the consumer] filed his claim; and 2) debts lower than $500 would not appear on a credit report, according to the CFPB.

Ready for What’s Next in Collections? Get Tratta’s Strategy Guide to Smarter, Compliant Recoveries here.

Bankruptcy Filings continued their rise in September of 2025. When comparing September 2025 to September 2024, the number of filings increased by 16%.  The total number of filings was 49,182 as reported by Epiq AACER.

A breakdown of the filings showed that individual filings were up 11%, led by an increase of 15% of Chapter 7 Consumer filings which rose by 15%. Chapter 13 wage earner reorganizations increased by 10%.

Commercial bankruptcy filings showed a modest increase for September as compared to the prior year. Commercial bankruptcy filings were up 13%. The largest increase was in Subchapter V small business filings. Chapter 11 filings saw a small increase of 3% year over year.

The publishing of the September 2025 Bankruptcy statistics allowed us to look at the trends during the first three quarters of the year. Compared to the first three quarters of 2024, total filings increased 10% to 423,053.  Most of these filings were consumer filings with commercial filings only making up 23,666 of the totals. Within the consumer filings, Chapter 13 saw a 4% increase while Chapter 7 saw an increase of almost 19%.

The Bankruptcy Working Group will continue to monitor the filing trends and provide RMAI members with statistical data to better help their companies understand the bankruptcy risk.

Contribute to the Legislative Fund with Your 2026 Renewal
It’s renewal season here at RMAI! You should have received your renewal invoice via email on October 1 which is due by December 31, 2025. This is a great opportunity to donate to RMAI’s Legislative Fund when you pay your renewal dues.

In 2025, RMAI was on the forefront of countless issues on the state and federal level to advocate for the receivables management industry. Even now, RMAI is raising concerns with the California Department of Financial Protection & Innovation (DFPI) regarding their new annual assessment fee associated with state licensure. We look forward to another amazing year of advocacy with you, and your donations help make that happen. Please consider donating any amount that you can contribute. To see more information on what has been accomplished this year and where your donations go, check out RMAI’s Legislative Fund Infographic.  

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.

Upcoming Webinars
Register for our October 22^nd webinar, Litigation Trends in Consumer Finance: What’s New, What’s Next, and How to Mount an Effective Defense (Sponsored by Finvi), and join our presenters for a practical and forward-looking discussion focused on the most pressing litigation trends and defense strategies shaping the year ahead.

Register for the third webinar in our CCO Webinar Series on October 29^th, Buildinga Risk Assessment and Audit Program Tailored to the Size and Scale of your Organization (Sponsored by ARM Compliance Business Solutions).  Attendees will explore the distinctions between audit, both internal and external, monitoring, and risk assessments. Attendees will also learn how to evaluate and implement remediation programs in use today by their industry compliance peers.

Recorded Webinar
Recorded on September 23, 2025 you can register for The Evolution of Fintech Today and Where is it Going? In this session, industry leaders will explore how product lines are evolving, the models driving origination, and the trends shaping opportunities across prime and underserved markets. Panelists will also discuss the shifting dynamics between fintechs and banks, key regulatory developments, and what’s next for this rapidly expanding sector.

Chief Compliance Officer Webinar Series (Package or Individual) 
The Chief Compliance Officer Webinar Series Package includes five courses focusing on developing and maintain your compliance program within your company. You can register for all five (5) or pick and choose individual courses.

1. RECORDED Register From Paper to Practice: Building Policies & Procedures that Protect, Perform, and Prevail (Receive as a recording when package is purchased)
2. RECORDED Register From Mandate to Motivation: Building a Risk-Proof and Engaging Compliance Training Program (Receive as a recording when package is purchased)
3. Building a Risk Assessment and Audit Program Tailored to the Size and Scale of your Organization – October 29, 2025
4. From Onboarding to Offboarding: Building Rock-Solid Vendor Partnerships in Collections – November 5, 2025
5. A CCO’s Guide to Impactful Board and Executive Reporting – December 5, 2025

To see full descriptions of each webinar check out our website by clicking this link.

Pricing: Package | Member: $200 | Non-Member: $350
Pricing: Individual | Member: $64 | Non-Member: $94

Click here for more information on our live and recorded educational webinars. Contact Shannon Parod-Tsui 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)!

CRCP New
Mardi Bishop, Midland Credit Management
Maryann McBrinn
Denise Taylor
Scott Thomas

CRCP Renewals
Andrew Blady, Spring Oaks Capital
Joshua DeLeon, Cavalry Portfolio Services
Crystal Duplay, Frost Echols
David Reid, RMAI
Christopher Russell, Plaza Services
Brett Soldevila, Security Credit Services

CRB Renewals
Collection Attorneys USA
Consuegra & Duffy PLLC

View all certified businesses and vendors.
View all certified individuals.

Certification Resources on the RMAI Website

RMAI has all the resources you need to help you through both individual & business certification located on our Certification Webpage. This includes resources for becoming certified for the first time, as well as for renewals.

Resource Examples for Individuals:

• 7 Steps to Earn a Certified Receivables Compliance Professional
• Education Credit Forms for the past two years of RMAI conferences
• Authorized Education Providers

Resource Examples for Businesses:

• 7 Steps to Earn a Certified Receivables Business or Certified Receivables Vendor
• Audit Extension Request Form
• Sample Policies and Procedures

There are many more resources available to you on the certification webpage, but we also welcome phone calls and emails with any questions you have.  Contact Shannon Parod-Tsui @ [email protected] or call 916-482-2590.

View our full list of certification resources.

Renew Your Membership
Renewal invoices were distributed on October 1, 2025, via email and mail, and can be paid online when you login. Please take a moment to review your invoice, and if you need help updating information, you can call (916) 779-2493 or email [email protected]. The deadline to renew is December 31, 2025, to avoid a late fee and to continue to receive member benefits like ongoing networking opportunities, live and pre-recorded webinars, timely information and resources, and robust state and federal advocacy. If you are planning to attend RMAI’s 2026 Annual Conference, remember that you must renew by December 31, 2025, to receive the members-only discounted registration rate.

Thank you for your continued support. We look forward to another amazing year with you!

Welcome, New Members
Intercap Services, LLC. | NY
R.A. Phipps, Inc. | TX
Credit Bureau of Bismarck, Inc. | ND

For a complete list of RMAI members (including contact information), login to check out the Member Directory.

2026 RMAI Annual Conference | February 9-12, 2026

LEGISLATIVE FUND CONTRIBUTORS OCTOBER 1, 2024 – OCTOBER 14, 2025

DIAMOND
Absolute Resolutions Corp.
Cavalry Investments, LLC
Crown Asset Management, LLC
PRA Group, Inc.
Second Round, LP
Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.

TITANIUM
Cascade365 Family of Companies
Financial Recovery Services, Inc.
Garnet Capital Advisors, LLC
Halsted Financial Services, LLC
Pharus Funding, LLC
Rausch Sturm, LLP
TRAKAmerica

PLATINUM
Blitt and Gaines, P.C.
InvestiNet, LLC
Plaza Services
Stenger & Stenger P.C.
T & I Enterprises, LLC

GOLD
D & A Services, LLC
Klima, Peters & Daly, P.A.

SILVER
Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis,  PLLC
DebtNext Software, LLC
National Credit Adjusters, LLC
Pressler, Felt and Warshaw, LLP
Velo Law Office

BRONZE
Central Portfolio Control, Inc
Couch Lambert
Resurgence Capital, LLC
Security Credit Services, LLC
Stillman Law Office
Tromberg, Miller, Morris & Partners, PLLC
Troy Capital, LLC

BRASS
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
Bedard Law Group, P.C.
CASA Receivables Management, 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
Connect International
ConServe
Cornerstone Licensing Services
Credit Control, LLC
Credit Corp Solutions Inc.
FDR Alliance LLC
FLOCK Specialty Finance
FMA Alliance, Ltd
FMS, Inc.
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
MauriceWutscher LLP
Moss & Barnett, P.A.
Mountain Peak Law Group, PC
National Debt Holdings, LLC
National Loan Exchange, Inc.
NCB Management Services, Inc.
Nelson & Kennard
NICE
Nuvei Technologies Inc.
PaymentVision (Autoscribe)
PCI Group Inc.
Phin Solutions, LLC
Premier Bankcard
Premium Asset Recovery Corp (PARC)
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 & Council Co., LPA
Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP
SMS Financial, LLC
Stone Creek Financial Inc.
Stone, Higgs & Drexler
Superlative RM
Suttell & Hammer
The Cadle Company
The Moore Law Group
The Oakes Law Firm, LLC
VeriFacts, LLC.
Vertican Technologies, Inc.
Womble Bond Dickinson
Zarzaur & Schwartz, P.C.

OTHER
Actuate Law, LLC
Alliance Credit Services, Inc.
C & E Acquisition Group, 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
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
Troutman Pepper Locke
Vargo & Janson, P.C.