BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
Legislation of for-profit debt adjusters gets nod from Senate Commerce Committee
March 11, 2019 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
|Legalization of for-profit debt adjusters gets nod from Senate Commerce Committee
A bill that would permit for-profit debt adjusters to operate legally in New Jersey received a unanimous vote, moving it out of the Senate Commerce Committee. The New Jersey State Bar Association opposes S-3499 (Pou) because the association believes there is the potential that for-profit debt adjusters may prey on vulnerable New Jersey citizens. Ronald I. Levine testified on behalf of the NJSBA before the committee last week, raising concerns about the bill and promising to work with the sponsor on potential amendments.
Levine, a member of the NJSBA's Consumer Protection Law Group, was joined by David McMillin of Legal Services of New Jersey, who also opposed the bill. Both testified about the efficacy of existing nonprofit debt servicers that provide protections for consumers by regulating not just the practice of debt settlement, but also attorneys who advise clients on debt settlement as an ancillary service. Both argued that debt adjusters, which already operate illegally in New Jersey, are not necessary because of the availability of other resources, including nonprofits and bankruptcy attorneys, who are well-versed in the federal laws related to debt.
“Reputable nonprofit agencies, and attorneys providing ancillary services for clients, already provide all of the crucial services in this arena to New Jersey consumers, legally and effectively,” said the NJSBA. “New Jersey has long had an accessible and effective network of nonprofit credit counseling agencies that offer debt management in accordance with the existing New Jersey Debt Adjusters Act.”
In addition to protections governing nonprofit social service or credit counseling agencies or attorneys offering debt adjustment services in New Jersey, the act further limits the fees for debt adjustment services and requires credit counseling to post a bond and have its financial records audited annually with mandatory reporting. Also, acting as a debt adjuster without a license is a criminal violation and gives rise to private remedies under the Consumer Fraud Act.
The Fair Credit Council, which represents for-profit debt settlement providers, testified in favor of the bill, arguing that the federal laws in place protect consumers from practices such as advanced fee collection and counseling. However, the NJSBA argued that such protections fall shy of protecting consumers because of the lack of information regarding tax consequences and other avenues of debt settlement.
In 2012, the Law Revision Commission issued a report recommending adoption of the Uniform Debt-Management Services Act with New Jersey-specific amendments to “maximize the protections for New Jersey residents.” This includes the incorporation of language from the Federal Trade Commission Telemarketing Sales Rule, eliminating certain automatic exemptions from the law, prerequisites for entering into an agreement, mandatory agreement language, marketing and advertisement requirements, and remedies in the event of a violation of the act.
The association continues to monitor the bill's progress and to work with the sponsor to create a consumer-friendly bill that protects vulnerable consumers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute readDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
- 2Del. Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 3Another Senior Boeing Attorney Exits, This One for CLO Post at Jet-Maintenance Company
- 4Bridge the Communication Gap: The Benefits of Having (and Being) a Bilingual Mediator
- 5CFIUS Is Locked and Loaded, but What Lies Ahead for CFIUS Enforcement Activity?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250