RMAI Update October 2022

The House and Senate are in recess until November 14th. However, the Senate has reconvened to formally begin debate on the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate NDAA was filed last week. More than 960 amendments have been filed in hopes of being included in this large legislative vehicle, though we have heard that less than 100 of those filed are likely to make the final cut into the bill. Some things likely to be included are: the Taiwan Policy Act; reauthorizations of State Department, Coast Guard, Maritime Administration, and intelligence programs; the Water Resources Development Act; measures from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; and legislation to improve ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes science to support conservation, restoration, and resilience. While the Senate has begun considering the NDAA, actual votes on amendments and final passage will not occur until some point after the election.

At the end of September, Congress voted to approve a stopgap funding measure, narrowly avoiding a government shutdown when FY22 federal funding ran out on September 30th. Government funding is now scheduled to expire on December 16. Senate Majority Leader Schumer has indicated that it will be an “extremely busy” two months when Congress returns after the midterm elections, though prospects for legislative activity and a potential FY23 omnibus appropriations package coming to fruition during the lame duck session will likely depend upon the outcomes of the election.

Looking ahead, other legislative priorities for the fall after the midterm elections reportedly include: energy permitting legislation spearheaded by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), legislation to codify the right to same-sex marriage, bipartisan election reform legislation, disaster relief, the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, legislation to legalize cannabis banking, and a potential bill to raise the federal debt limit (if necessary).

On October 6th, the OCC released its Bank Supervision Operating Plan for FY2023. Key priorities highlighted in the plan include: “Strategic and operational planning; Operational resiliency; Third parties and related concentrations; Credit risk management; Allowances for credit losses; Interest rate risk; Liquidity risk management; Consumer compliance; Bank Secrecy Act; Fair lending; Community Reinvestment Act; New products and services; and climate-related financial risks.” More information is available here.

On September 28th, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-PA) issued a statement after a group of financial institutions filed a lawsuit within the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to challenge the legality of the CFPB’s recent changes to the UDAAP exam manual. Senator Toomey stated, “The CFPB should certainly enforce the laws Congress charged them with—including laws protecting against discrimination in consumer finance—but this sneaky change goes far beyond what Congress ever authorized. The CFPB has now wrongly granted itself power to use the controversial disparate impact theory to punish any financial services provider for discrimination even without evidence of discriminatory intent. Coupled with the fact that the CFPB put this contentious policy in place with an edit to its exam manual instead of through a transparent rulemaking process, it’s clear Director Chopra will keep using legally dubious tactics to pursue a highly-politicized agenda. I’m glad to see the Chamber and other groups taking a stand against Director Chopra’s latest power grab.” More information is available here.

On September 22nd, the OCC announced three new members of its Executive Committee, which became effective on October 10th. They include Beverly Cole to be the Senior Deputy Comptroller for Midsize and Community Bank Supervision; Minh-Hai Tran-Lam to be the Senior Deputy Comptroller for the Office of Management; and Jay Gallagher to be Senior Deputy Comptroller for Supervision Risk and Analysis. More information on their backgrounds are available here.

On September 20th, House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and House Oversight and Reform Committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, requesting that he provide Congress with the explicit statutory authorities designated to the CFPB that can justify its recent and upcoming rulemakings. The letter highlights the recent West Virginia v. EPA Supreme Court decision, and called into question the SEC’s authority to issue six rulemakings, including: “(1) An interpretive rule expanding the authority of States to Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 beyond what was intended by Congress; (2) An advisory opinion expanding Equal Credit Opportunity (Regulation B); as well as making revocations or unfavorable changes to the terms of existing credit arrangements; (3) An advisory opinion narrowly interpreting the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to name-only matching procedures; and (4) An interpretive rule limiting the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s preemption authority, allowing states to pass laws impacting implementation of the FCRA.” Additional information is available in their press release here and the full text of the letter here.

On September 15th, the CFPB issued a report entitled Buy Now, Pay Later: Market trends and consumer impacts. The top risk areas for consumer harm identified in the report include: “inconsistent consumer protections; data harvesting and monetization; and debt accumulation and overextension.” According to the CFPB press release, “To address the discrete consumer harms, the CFPB will identify potential interpretive guidance or rules to issue with the goal of ensuring that Buy Now, Pay Later lenders adhere to many of the baseline protections that Congress has already established for credit cards. As part of this review, the agency will also ensure Buy Now, Pay Later lenders, just like credit card companies, are subjected to appropriate supervisory examinations. To address emerging risk issues with data harvesting, the CFPB will identify the data surveillance practices that Buy Now, Pay Later lenders should seek to avoid. To reduce the risk of borrower overextension, the CFPB will continue to address how the industry can develop appropriate and accurate credit reporting practices. The agency will also take steps to ensure the methodology used by the CFPB and the rest of the Federal Reserve System to estimate household debt burden is rigorous.” More information is available here.

On September 14th, the FTC and CFPB filed a joint amicus brief to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit calling for the reversal of a lower court’s ruling in Ingram v. Experian, which “could create an exception to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allowing furnishers of credit information to decline to investigate when consumers dispute inaccurate information in certain circumstances.” More information on their brief and the court case is available here.

On September 12th, the OCC announced the appointment of Dr. Yue (Nina) Chen as its new Chief Climate Risk Officer. She will “lead the agency’s climate risk efforts related to supervision, policy, and external engagement. She will oversee the activities of the OCC’s Office of Climate Risk and report directly to the Acting Comptroller of the Currency. Under Dr. Chen’s leadership, the OCC will continue to focus on the development and implementation of climate risk management frameworks for the federal banking system.” More information is available here.

State Legislatures are generally out of session for the year. The last major state to adjourn was California on August 31st. The California Governor’s bill signing deadline was on September 30th (see related RMAI Member Alert). RMAI is currently preparing for the upcoming 2023 legislative cycle. Obviously, some of what we could face in 2023 will be determined by the results of this November’s mid-term elections. RMAI will provide a post-election analysis next month.

For more information on State Laws that were enacted during the 2022 legislative cycle, please see our 2022 Digest of New State Laws. To request a copy of the RMAI state tracking list, contact David Reid at dreid@rmaintl.org.

Third Circuit Holds PA Consumer Discount Company Act Did Not Apply to Debt Buyer
Lutz v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 21-1656, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26061 (3d Cir. Sep. 19, 2022)

A consumer applied for and received a credit card from a bank that included an agreement for the plaintiff to pay interest on the unpaid balance of his account at an annual rate of 22.9%. After default, the bank sold the consumer’s account to a debt buyer.

The debt buyer filed a collection suit against the consumer and obtained a default judgment. After the collection proceedings concluded, the consumer sued the debt buyer alleging it had violated the FDCPA.  In his amended complaint, the consumer asserted that the company violated the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act (“PCDCA”) and as a result also violated the FDCPA by trying to collect interest in excess of limits imposed under Pennsylvania law.

The trial court granted the debt buyer’s motion to dismiss and denied the consumer’s request for another opportunity to amend the complaint. The consumer appealed.

On appeal, the consumer argued that the company violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect interest that had accrued at greater than 6% annually in violation of Pennsylvania law.  In Pennsylvania, the PCDCA permits certain licensed entities to charge interest at up to 24% for loans under $25,000.  However, unlicensed entities that are subject to the PCDCA may not “charge, collect, contract for, or receive interest” at an annual interest rate above 6% for loans under $25,000.

Here, the loan was extended by the bank, and the bank was not subject to the restrictions under the PCDCA. However, the consumer argued that the debt buyer was subject to the PCDCA but not licensed, and therefore it was illegal for the debt buyer to collect or attempt to collect interest at a rate that exceeded 6% even though the interest rate was valid when the loan was made by the bank.

The debt buyer argued that it was not subject to the PCDCA for two main reasons. First, it pointed out that it was not “in the business of negotiating or making loans or advances” as required under 7 P.S. § 6203.A.  Second, even if it negotiated or made loans or advances, it could still collect interest at an annual rate above 6% because it held a license from the Department of Banking and Securities.

The Third Circuit agreed with the debt buyer’s position that the PCDCA did not apply.

Because the PCDCA only applies to entities that are “in the business of negotiating or making loans or advances,” the Third Circuit focused on the definition and meaning of the term “negotiate.”  After review of the legislative history of the PCDCA, Black’s law dictionary, statutory rules of construction, and the consistent usage canon, the Court held that the term “negotiate” as used in the PCDCA is best understood to mean “to bargain” and not “to transfer.”

In examining the allegations in the amended complaint, the Third Circuit held that although there were general references to the debt buyer’s debt collection practices, including the practice of purchasing defaulted consumer debts, this was not enough to reasonably infer that an entity that purchases charged-off debt would also negotiate or bargain for the initial terms of loans or advances.

Therefore, the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice and held that the dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion.

Eleventh Circuit Dismisses Hunstein Based on Lack of Article III Standing
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., No. 19-14434, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25233 (11th Cir. Sep. 8, 2022)

On September 8, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its highly anticipated decision regarding a claim that a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by sending information regarding a debt to a letter vendor.  The consumer alleged only a statutory violation; he did not allege any tangible or actual harm.

Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA provides that “a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector,” unless the consumer has given prior consent directly to the debt collector, or in several other specific scenarios.

In April 2021, the Eleventh Circuit held that the transmittal of consumer information to a letter vendor constitutes a communication with an unauthorized third party in connection with the collection of a debt in violation of § 1692c(b), and that the consumer had alleged a concrete injury necessary for Article III standing.  In October, after granting a petition for rehearing, the Court vacated its prior opinion and rendered a substitute opinion, considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez yet yielding a similar result.

In the present opinion, the Court relied on heavily on TransUnion in determining that the consumer had not alleged a concrete harm and therefore lacked Article III standing.  The Court explained that “for intangible harms, analogizing to longstanding torts is an important way to determine whether an alleged intangible injury meets the concreteness requirement.”

The consumer argued that the violation was akin to the tort of public disclosure, but the Court disagreed: “Publicity requires far more than what [the consumer] has offered—it does not include just ‘any communication by the defendant to a third person.’  Instead, it requires that a matter be ‘made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.’”

Therefore, the Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the matter with instructions to dismiss the case.

 

Third Circuit Finds Standing in Data Breach Case Based on Risk of Future Harm
Clemens v. ExecuPharm Inc., 48 F.4th 146 (3d Cir. 2022)

As a condition of employment, a consumer was required to provide her employer “with sensitive personal and financial information, including her address, social security number, bank and financial account numbers, insurance and tax information, her passport, and information relating to her husband and child.”  The employment agreement stated that the employer “would ‘take appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality and security’ of this information.”

Sometime after the consumer left that employment, a hacking group used a phishing attack and stole her information, as well as that of other current and former employees.  Ultimately, the hackers posted the data on the Dark Web, which “is most widely used as an underground black market where individuals sell illegal products like . . . sensitive stolen data that can be used to commit identity theft or fraud.”

The consumer filed suit against the employer alleging she was injured by the risk of identity theft and her investment of time and money to mitigate potential harm through measures such as fraud alerts and credit monitoring.  Specifically, her claims were for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence.

The trial court dismissed the suit based on lack of Article III standing, holding that “allegations of an increased risk of identity theft resulting from a security breach are insufficient for standing,” and that the “risk of future harm was not imminent, but ‘speculative,’ because she had not yet experienced actual identity theft or fraud.”

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained that for Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, “that he or she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.”  Regarding data breaches, the Court noted that factors to be considered are whether the breach was intentional, whether the data was misused, and the nature of the data accessed.

Here, the unauthorized access was clearly intentional and, by being made available on the Dark Web, was misused.  The data “was also the type of data that could be used to perpetrate identity theft or fraud. . . Together, these factors show that Clemens has alleged a ‘substantial risk that the harm will occur’ sufficient to establish an ‘imminent’ injury.”

The Court noted that “although the substantial risk of identity theft is a risk of future harm and this is a suit for damages, which may under other circumstances pose a problem for concreteness, [the consumer] has alleged several additional concrete harms that she has already experienced as a result of that risk . . . Thus, her injury is also “concrete.”

Based on this reasoning, the Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for consideration on the merits.

Third Circuit Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration Where Validity of Assignment of Contract was at Issue
Zirpoli v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 21-2438, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24724 (3d Cir. Sep. 1, 2022)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed that parties may contractually delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and reversed a District Court’s order denying a debt buyer’s motion to compel arbitration when there was a question about the validity of assignment of the underlying contract.

“Arbitration is a contractual obligation,” the Third Circuit held. “Thus, parties to a contract may delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. If parties clearly and unmistakably make this choice, then district courts generally must send threshold questions of arbitrability to arbitration to comply with the parties’ agreement.”

A non-bank finance company and a borrower entered into a loan contract that included a very broad arbitration agreement including “the enforceability, or the arbitrability of any Claim pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to the scope of this Agreement and any defenses to enforcement of the Note or this Agreement.”  The arbitration agreement also applied to any assignees or successors of the original parties.

Subsequent to the formation of the contract, the finance company assigned the contract to a debt buyer company, which attempted to collect the balance due from the borrower.  At issue was the fact that the loan had an interest rate of 26.91% that would ordinarily run afoul of Pennsylvania’s usury law.  The finance company issued the loan under the Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA) which creates an exception to Pennsylvania’s usury limits.  The finance company was licensed by Pennsylvania’s Department of Banking to issue CDCA loans, but the debt buyer was not.

The borrower filed a class action lawsuit against the debt buyer arguing that the attempt to collect the loan was unlawful since the debt buyer did not have the requisite CDCA license and did not seek approval of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking to purchase his loan and the loans of the putative class.

The debt buyer filed a motion to compel arbitration that was originally denied by the District Court so that the parties could engage in brief discovery to determine whether the debt buyer either had the requisite license or had obtained approval from the Pennsylvania Department of Banking.  After the discovery revealed that the debt buyer did not in fact have either the license or the Department of Banking’s blessing, the District Court held that the assignment from the finance company to the debt buyer was invalid and denied the debt buyer’s motion to compel arbitration.

The Third Circuit had recently held that the question of arbitrability may be delegated to an arbitrator so long as the contract expressly provides for that delegation in MZM Constr. Co., Inc. v. New Jersey Bldg. Labs Statewide Benefit Funds, 974 F.3d 386, 392 (3d Cir. 2020).  Here, the issue was whether the challenge to the legality of an assignment of a loan that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate can also challenge the formation of the arbitration agreement itself.

The Third Circuit rejected the borrower’s preliminary argument that the debt buyer was not a “party” that could move to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because the assignment to the debt buyer was invalid.  Rather, the Court held that “party” under the FAA referred to litigants and not parties to the agreement.

Moving on to the “threshold arbitrability question” the Third Circuit disagreed with the District Court’s finding that the court must answer the question of who decides whether the parties must arbitrate: the arbitrator or the court.  The Court discussed the strong federal policy in favor of resolving disputes through arbitration and ensuring that courts will honor and enforce contractual provisions related to arbitration.

While the District Court and the dissent want to make the determination of whether there is an agreement to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the Third Circuit held that this decision is for the arbitrator. There was no dispute that the borrower and the finance company agreed that arbitrability would be determined by the arbitrator. The District Court made the determination that the assignment to the debt buyer was invalid whereas the Third Circuit reasoned that such a determination would render the delegation provision in the arbitration agreement meaningless. The Third Circuit recognized that the arbitrator could later find that the assignment was invalid but also noted that this was not definite as there was a question as to whether the CDCA applied now that the loan was charged off.

On the issue of delegating arbitrability to the arbitrator the Third Circuit noted that a party would have to challenge the very formation of the arbitration agreement unless the delegation clause was being separately challenged.  Here, the borrower argued that the challenge to the assignment constituted a challenge to the formation of the agreement to arbitrate but this argument was rejected by the Third Circuit as there was no dispute that the borrower entered into a valid arbitration agreement with the finance company and that the finance company subsequently assigned that agreement to the debt buyer.  Thus, the challenge was really to the validity of the assignment and not the agreement.

The Court further reasoned that “because the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate the issue of enforceability of the contract to an arbitrator, the challenge to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement must be decided by the arbitrator and not the court.”

Ultimately, the arbitration agreement at issue was very broad and included “any Claim . . . includ[ing] . . . the arbitrability of any Claim . . . and any defenses to enforcement of the Note or this Agreement.”  The Third Circuit concluded that the arbitrator will determine these issues and that the District Court’s opinion making that determination had to be reversed and thus remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to refer the matter to arbitration.

Fifth Circuit Finds Lack of Standing Where Collection Letter Lacked Time-Barred Debt Notice
Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C., No. 21-50958, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22649 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2022)

A consumer received a collection letter from a collection law firm on that debt that was beyond the statute of limitations.  The letter failed to notify the consumer of that fact, and she filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices (“FDCPA”), § 1692e.  The consumer also sought class certification, which the trial court granted, and the law firm appealed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit began with the issue of standing, despite the issue not having been raised on appeal by the law firm.  Specifically, the court focused its analysis on the requirement that a plaintiff show that she or he “suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.”

First, the consumer argued that her injury was concrete because there was a “violation of her statutory rights under the FDCPA.”  The Court disagreed, noting that such a theory was foreclosed by TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), which in part held that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.”

Second, the consumer argued that “her receipt of the letter subjected her to a risk that she might accidentally per her time-barred debts.”  Again, the Court disagreed based on TransUnion: “A plaintiff always must be able to point to a concrete injury to bring suit. And if a risk hasn’t materialized, the plaintiff hasn’t yet been injured.  TransUnion held that merely being subjected to a risk of future harm cannot support a suit for damages.”

Third, the consumer argued that the confusion caused by the letter amounted to a concrete injury.  The Court disagreed, noting it was joining the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits “in holding that the state of confusion, absent more, is not a concrete injury under Article III.”  While the consumer asserted that her confusion was analogous to a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court explained that the analogy was flawed because confusion is not a “tangible harm,” and “is necessarily different ‘in kind’ from her common-law analog.”

Fourth, the consumer argued “the time she wasted by consulting with her lawyer after receiving the letter qualifies as a concrete injury.”  The consumer didn’t offer any analogy to  common law, and the Court was “not aware of any tort that makes a person liable for wasting another’s time.”  Thus, the consumer failed to “carry her burden to show that a time-based injury could sustain her claims.”

Fifth, and finally, the consumer argued that receipt of the “unwanted letter caused her to suffer a concrete injury analogous to the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.”  The Court observed that “the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person,” and noted one example could be “repeated, harassing communications.”  However, the consumer claimed a violation of § 1692e, an “antifraud provision,” which is not analogous to the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.  Rather, the section of the FDCPA that relates to “invasions of individual privacy” is § 1692d, which prohibits harassment and abuse.  Since the consumer didn’t bring suit under that section, “she can’t bootstrap the harms it recognizes as actionable to demonstrate standing to sue based on a different provision.”

Based on the above, the Court vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Donate with Your Membership Renewal
Membership renewals are here, and what better time than now to donate to RMAI’s Legislative Fund? As you renew your membership, please take note of the suggested voluntary donation on your invoice. Any donation to our Legislative Fund is appreciated and greatly helps us to continue the fight for the receivables management industry, so feel free to donate a different amount than suggested.

If you’ve already paid your membership dues but would like to contribute, you can do so by donating here. We will add your company name to our list of Legislative Fund contributors on the RMAI website and in RMAI publications, and invite you to the Legislative Fund Reception at the 2023 Annual Conference. Click here to see a list of current contributors.

Monthly Webinars – Free for Members
Register now for our October 18th webinar, DEI Discussion with the CFPB. Brit Suttell of Barron & Newburger, P.C. leads this discussion with Rhonda Johnson, a Senior Advisor at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The two will provide insights into how the CFPB views the importance of DEI initiatives and how your company can leverage a competitive advantage by incorporating DEI.

If you missed our September 22nd webinar, you can still watch the recording: Regulation and Risk Management of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Receivables Management.

Click here for more information on individual webinars.

Chief Compliance Officer Webinar Series (CCO Series)
Our six-part webinar series, which focuses on updates and changes in the compliance world since the implementation of Regulation F, is coming to an end on November 1st with our final topic on Payments. Previous topics included Credit Reporting, Letters, Communication Restrictions, Vendor Oversight, and Text Message/SMS. While this series is designed for chief compliance officers, the content is beneficial for anyone working in or wanting to learn more about these topic areas.

REGISTER for the Entire CCO Webinar Series: $299 for members (Recordings provided for webinars that have already occurred); or for Individual Webinars: $64 per webinar for members

• Credit Reporting – May 26th REGISTER for the Recording
• Letters – June 23rd REGISTER for the Recording
• Communication Restrictions – July 26th REGISTER for the Recording
• Vendor Oversight – September 15th REGISTER for the Recording
• Text Message/SMS – October 13th REGISTER for the Recording
• Payments – November 1st REGISTER

Contact Shannon Parod at sparod@rmaintl.org or (916) 482-2590 with any questions.

Congratulations to our new and renewed Certified Receivables Compliance Professionals (CRCP), new and renewed Certified Receivables Businesses (CRB) and renewed Certified Receivables Vendor (CRV)!

CRCP – New
Noel Chricton, CKS Financial
Kyle Cohen, Law Offices of Steven Cohen, LLC
Anne Gonzales, Crown Asset Management
Dean Hoover, Collection Attorneys USA, LLC
Stephen Miller, Assured Financial, LLC
Laura Scheiber, RMAI
Megan Tiani, Hilco Receivables

CRCP – Renewals
Rozanne Andersen, Finvi
Matt Aylworth, Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, PC
Michael Druckman, Pharus Funding, LLC
Tracey Gibson, Viking Client Services
Todd Gurstel, T & I Enterprises, LLC
Stacy Rodriguez, Actuate Law, LLC
David Rolf, Tag Process Service, Inc.
James Vaughan, Law Office of James R. Vaughan
Laura White, PRA Group
Thomas Wilcox, Diverse Funding Associates
Lily Wood, Rausch Sturm

CRB – New
Collection Attorneys USA, LLC

CRB – Renewals
Integras Capital Recovery
Kodak Law
NMRC
Superlative RM
Velocity Portfolio Group

CRV – Renewal
Garnet Capital Advisors

Where Can I Get My In-Person Credits?
Chief Compliance Officers for a Certified Receivables Business (CRB) or Certified Receivables Vendor (CRV) are required to earn at least 12 in-person credits to apply for or renew the Certified Receivables Compliance Professional (CRCP) designation. (Non-CCOs, can earn credits online or in-person.) Register for the 2023 Annual Conference, February 6-9 in Las Vegas, and choose from two-and-a-half days of in-person education.

RMAI also has many Authorized Education Providers whose education qualifies for credit towards your Certified Receivables Compliance Professional (CRCP) designation. If you have taken any education via these organizations, you can submit proof of attendance or completion of education to us with your new or renewal application.

View all certified businesses and vendors.
View all certified individuals.
View educational requirements for certified individuals.

For questions about certification, contact RMAI at (916) 482-2462 or email cert@rmaintl.org.

RMAI’s leadership cultivates relationships within the receivables management industry to expand business opportunities for members.

RMAI 2023 Annual Conference | February 6-9, 2023

Please note, the RMAI offices will be closed November 11th, in observance of Veterans Day.

Thank you to our October 2021 – October 14  2022 Legislative Fund Contributors!

Diamond $25,000
Cavalry Investments, LLC

Crown Asset Management, LLC

Financial Recovery Services, Inc.

First Financial Portfolio Services, LLC (FFAM360)

Midland Credit Management

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

Resurgent Holdings, LLC

Titanium $15,000

National Credit Adjusters, LLC

Platinum $10,000

Blitt and Gaines, P.C.

Cascade Capital, LLC

InvestiNet, LLC

Second Round, LP

Unifund CCR LLC

Gold $7,500

Miller and Steeno, P.C.

Pressler, Felt and Warshaw, LLP

Rausch Sturm, LLP

Superlative RM

Silver $5,000

AscensionPoint Recovery Services, LLC

CKS Financial

Digital Recognition Network

FMA Alliance, Ltd

Halsted Financial Services, LLC

Klima, Peters, & Daly, P.A.

Pharus Funding, LLC

Spring Oaks Capital, LLC

T&I Enterprises, LLC

Tromberg, Morris & Poulin, PLLC

Velo Law Office

Bronze $2,500

Absolute Resolutions Corp.

Couch Lambert

DebtNext Software, LLC

Investment Retrievers, Inc.

Ragan & Ragan

RAzOR Capital, LLC

Resurgence Capital, LLC

SAM, Inc. – Solutions for Account Management

Security Credit Services, LLC

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.

Brass $1,000

Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC

Bayview Solutions, LLC

Butler & Associates, P.A.

Call Center Services International

Complete Credit Solutions, Inc.

FLOCK Specialty Finance

Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C.

Harvest Strategy Group, Inc.

Hunt & Henriques

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC

Kino Financial Co., LLC

Levy & Associates, LLC

Maxwell & Graves Solutions, LLC

Portnoy Schneck, L.L.C.

Quall Cardot, LLP

Quantum3 Group, LLC

Simmonds & Narita, LLC

SimpleCertifiedMail.com

Slovin & Associates

Synergetic Communication, Inc.

The Cadle Company

Tobin & Marohn

Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.

VeriFacts, Inc.

Vertican Technologies, Inc.

Other

Accelerated Data Systems

Acctorp International, Inc.

Action Collection Agencies, Inc.

Advancial Federal Credit Union

Aldridge Pite Haan, LLP

Alliance Data

Alliant Capital Management LLC

Arko Consulting LLC

ARM Compliance Business Solutions

Atlas Acquisitions

Attunely Inc.

Autovest, LLC

Ballard Spahr, LLP

Beam Software

Business and Professional Collection Service, Inc.

C&E Acquisition Group, LLC/ Diverse Funding Associates

Capio

Capital Collection Management, LLC

Capital Link Management, LLC

Client Services Incorporated

CMS Services

Commercial Credit Group Inc.

Complete Credit Solutions, Inc.

Comtronic Systems, LLC

Conficio Capital, Inc.

Converging Capital, LLC

Convoke, Inc.

Cornerstone Support, Inc.

Credit Control, LLC

Credit Management Corporation

Credit Corp Solutions, Inc.

CSS Impact!

Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC

Delev & Associates, LLC

Dyck-O’Neal, Inc.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions

Equabli

Experian

Finvi

First American Acceptance Co., LLC

First Solutions Debt Management, LLC

FMS, Inc.

G. Reynolds Sims & Associates, P.C.

Gaskell & Giovannini, LLC

Genesis Recovery Services

Guglielmo & Associates, PLLC

Indiana Receivables, Inc.

Interim Capital Group, Inc.

International Debt Buying Consultants, LLC

Invenio Financial, a Phillips & Cohen Associates Company

Jormandy

Keith D. Weiner & Associates Co., LPA

Kelly Knepper -Stephens

Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C.

Law Offices of Steven Cohen, LLC

Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery, Inc.

Malone Frost Martin PLLC

MauriceWutscher LLP

Metronome Financial LLC

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.

National Debt Holdings, LLC

National Loan Exchange NLEX

National Recovery Associates, Inc.

National Recovery Solutions, LLC

Nationwide Recovery Systems

NCB Management Services, Inc.

Nelson & Kennard

NRA Group, LLC

PCI Group Inc.

Phin Solutions, LLC

Poser Investments, Inc.

Premier Forty Financial, LLC

Premium Asset Recovery Corp (PARC)

Pro Forma Inc

Provana, LLC

ProVest LLC

RAS LaVrar LLC

Repay

Resource Management Services, Inc.

RevSpring

Robinson, Hoover & Fudge, PLLC

Scott & Associates, PC

Sentry Credit, Inc.

SMS Financial, LLC

Sonnek & Goldblatt, Ltd.

State Collection Services, Inc.

Stone, Higgs & Drexler

Suttell & Hammer

Synchrony Financial

Tag Process Service, Inc.

Tate & Kirlin

Techno Brain BPO ITES Limited

TransUnion

Troy Capital, LLC

United Acquisitions, LLC

USASF Servicing

Vargo & Janson, P.C.

Venable LLP

VoApps

Zenarate, Inc