After being accused by New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, of using illegal scare tactics to “terrify” indebted Americans into repaying their debt, a Buffalo, N.Y., debt collection agency run by convicted felons has been shut down by state authorities (more…)

Popularity: 11% [?]

Since January, employers have been more likely to scale back employee salaries than to eliminate positions, a recent survey reveals. (more…)

Popularity: 10% [?]

Two Arkansas women who have been sued for defrauding at least 139 people in a credit-repair scam have refused to respond to a judge’s order to pay $700,000 in penalties and have even started a new credit repair operation, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports (“State Wins Credit-Repair Fraud Case,” May 26, 2009).

For four years, Sherrye Mance and Tiffany Morris allegedly defrauded customers seeking the credit repair services of three of their companies. The women, who operated the three unincorporated businesses Financial Services Unlimited, Service Unlimited Inc., and Credit Counseling Service, have reportedly started running a new credit repair operation under the name “Fresh Start Credit Service.”

In a lawsuit, the Arkansas attorney general has accused Mance and Morris — who collectively owe their victims $127,565 — of charging customers for “services purported to improve a customer’s credit history, credit record, and credit ratings,” although these services were likely never “actually performed.”

Mance and Morris have, so far, refused to respond to the lawsuit, missed their court hearing, and failed to respond to a court injunction. Meanwhile, the Arkansas attorney general’s office has already started receiving complaints from California residents about the defendants’ new company.

Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel believes the two women still live nearby — Mance in a neighboring Arkansas county and Morris in Mississippi. McDaniel says he is exploring all legal options that would force the women to pay the penalty fees and repay the 139 affected customers.

Popularity: 10% [?]

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has subpoenaed 14 debt settlement companies and one law firm as part of an investigation into the debt settlement industry, a move that has been labeled a “P.R. stunt” by an industry lawyer, The New York Times reports (“An Inquiry Into Firms That Offer to Cut Debt,” May 8, 2009).

Robby H. Birnbaum, a debt settlement lawyer who is also on the board of an industry trade group, said late last week that the debt settlement companies named in the investigation were placed in an awkward position when they first learned of Cuomo’s inquiry via the media.

“The press release was issued before any of these companies even received subpoenas,” Birnbaum said, so initially the debt settlement organizations would have had nothing to respond to. The companies in question didn’t receive their subpoenas until after Cuomo’s office generated its press release.

Companies’ Services May Not Be Living Up to Their Advertising

According to The Times, Cuomo will be investigating to what extent the subpoenaed debt settlement firms provide the debt relief services described in their advertisements by examining the companies’ fee structures and client base. Debt settlement organizations negotiate with credit card companies to reduce a client’s debt balance and typically charge a fee of about 15 percent of the client’s debt.

“With all of the problems we face in this time of economic distress, it is outrageous that these firms are targeting those who are the most financially vulnerable,” Cuomo said through an aide.

The purpose of the inquiry is to “ensure that people are not victimized when faced with financial hardship,” Cuomo’s office stated (“N.Y. Attorney General Probes Debt Settlement Firms,” Reuters, May 7, 2009).

Cuomo’s new investigation stems from a previous inquiry by the attorney general into two firms, Texas-based Credit Solutions, the nation’s largest alleged debt settlement firm, and Nationwide Asset of Arizona. Credit Solutions was accused of engaging in “false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices” in a March suit against the company, and Nationwide will soon be named in a suit and be accused of fraud.

Several Firms Welcome Industry Investigation

Cuomo’s current suit targets several debt settlement companies located across the nation and a single law firm:

American Debt Foundation Inc., American Financial Service, Consumer Debt Solutions, Credit Answers L.L.C., Debt Remedy Solutions L.L.C., Debt Settlement America, Debt Settlement USA, Debtmerica Relief, DMB Financial L.L.C., Freedom Debt Relief, New Era Debt Solutions, New Horizons Debt Relief Inc., Preferred Financial Services Inc., U.S. Financial Management Inc. (operating as My Debt Negotiation), and Allegro Law.

Several of the 14 firms named in Cuomo’s investigation have said they would welcome an investigation into the industry, which includes as many as 2,000 debt settlement companies nationwide. Some of these companies even went as far to say they would embrace tougher regulations in their industry, one that critics claim is under-regulated.

“The only companies that will suffer are those that don’t offer genuine value,” said Jeff Takle, a spokesman for a Massachusetts debt settlement firm.

Robert Linderman, general counsel for one of the firms named in the investigation, Freedom Debt Relief of San Mateo, Calif., echoed Takle’s sentiments and said, “We’re delighted the attorney general is seeking information from the industry.”

Popularity: 8% [?]

In one of the largest collection awards ever granted by a jury, a California couple has been awarded $500,000 in damages for being harassed and threatened by the debt collection agency Credigy Services Corporation, reports insideARM (“Jury Awards $500,000 to California Couple in FDCPA Case,” May 5, 2009).

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which protects consumers against abusive collections tactics by debt collectors, Manuel and Luz Fausto were awarded $100,000 for actual damages and $400,000 in punitive damages, granted by a jury for “malicious and reckless disregard of the couple’s rights.”

The award stems from a dispute over the couple’s Wells Fargo charge card debt they thought they had paid off in the late 1990s, said the Faustos’ lawyer, David Humphreys of Humphreys Wallace Humphreys, P.C.

During the mid-1990s, the couple realized that their credit card balance was continuing to rise even though they were making payments on their account, but a local Wells Fargo branch denied their request to have the account frozen.

To resolve the situation, the Faustos went to a local debt settlement company that promised to negotiate a payoff of the credit card balance. The couple thought the account had been paid off in the late 1990s, after they made two money order payments.

Then in 2006, the couple was contacted by Credigy with a demand to pay $17,000. Even after a cease-and-desist notice was sent to a Brazilian affiliate of Credigy, the debt collection company still made over 90 threatening calls and sent innumerable letters to the Faustos’ home.

Debt collection attorney Manny Newburger says the jury award in this case is one of the largest given to a consumer under the FDCPA, noting that usually “there is little or no evidence of actual damages presented by the consumer.” In this particular case, however, the Faustos were able to document the harassing nature of Credigy’s practices, including the company’s baseless threats, having recorded the last phone call from the collector.

Newburger believes that the verdict in the Fausto case was based largely on state legislation and doesn’t think that the size of the award will motivate more consumers to sue debt collection agencies in the future.

“I think this verdict is indicative of what this jury thought of this particular case,” Newburger said, “but not of anything else.”

Correction: May 8, 2009

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction: The original post mistakenly referred to the $500,000 jury verdict as the largest award conferred upon a consumer under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In fact, the $500,000 decision is among the largest FDCPA findings on behalf of a consumer, but not the singular largest.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed lawsuits against two debt settlement companies for allegedly misrepresenting their services to consumers and failing to follow through on their obligation to settle their clients’ debts, according to a press release from the Illinois attorney general’s office (“Attorney General Madigan Sues Two Debt Settlement Firms,” May 4, 2009).

Madigan has charged debt settlement firms Debt Relief USA, Inc. and SDS West Corporation with violations of the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, accusing the companies of deceptively marketing their services and of misrepresenting the impact those debt settlement services would have on clients’ credit.

According to one lawsuit, SDS West, along with its partner Nationwide Support Services, did not adequately inform its customers that their monthly payments would be applied to the company’s fees before the company would provide any of its promised debt settlement services — negotiations with a customer’s creditors for reduced payoff amounts. SDS West also failed to explain to its customers that they would have to make several months of payments before they would accumulate enough funds for the company to begin negotiating these settlement payoffs with the customers’ creditors.

In the second lawsuit, Madigan alleges that Debt Relief USA, which enrolled at least 470 Illinois customers in its debt settlement program between 2005 and 2008, did not “negotiate substantial reductions on most consumers’ accounts” and that most of its clients, having already paid the company’s nonrefundable fees, dropped out of the program before the company settled any of their debts.

Madigan is asking for permanent injunctions against both Debt Relief USA and SDS West that would prohibit them from engaging in debt settlement in the state of Illinois, along with court orders requiring each company to pay restitution, civil penalties of $50,000, and an additional $50,000 for each one of their violations that included intent to defraud.

Popularity: 6% [?]

California’s unemployment rate hit a record 11.2 percent in March, leaving 2.1 million people jobless — the highest level since World War II, according to a report released last week (“State Unemployment Rate Highest Since 1941,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 18, 2009).

The March figure surpasses the 11 percent unemployment rate the state reached during the early 1980’s recession, says Patti Roberts, spokeswoman for the state’s Employment Development Department. The March unemployment rate approaches the 11.7 percent unemployment rate the state had in January 1941.

While last month’s unemployment rate for the state was significantly higher than the national figure of 8.5 percent for March, California had the 4th highest rate of unemployment in the country, perhaps due to the decline in real estate.

“California’s higher rate of job loss is primarily the result of greater exposure to the housing downturn,” said Stephen Levy, director and senior economist at the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto.

Forecasters Vary on Outlook

The unemployment rate is grim and many Californians have been affected by job losses, “But on the other hand things are not really as bad as you might think,” said Chris Thornberg of Beacon Economics, a California real estate and economic forecasting firm.

Thornberg believes that these job losses can be attributed to the slump in consumer spending over the last year, and sees spending starting to stabilize in the near future along with the job market.

But Jerry Nickelsburg, an economist with the UCLA Anderson Forecast, believes that in all likelihood, the job market will continue to get worse before it gets better. He predicts California’s jobless rate will reach a high of 12 percent before it begins to decline sometime in 2010.

“Unemployment will likely creep up through the end of the year,” Nickelsburg said, “because employers will want to see that the increase in demand is strong before they hire.”

Popularity: 5% [?]

William Spellman, a 44-year-old IT professional from Indianapolis, has come to the realization that the old adage “what goes around, comes around” isn’t true in today’s recession. Spellman has been repeatedly denied a loan for his daughter’s summer school classes by some of the very banks who have been bailed out by his tax dollars, ABC News reports (“Banks Take Billions From TARP, but Give Fewer Loans,” April 21, 2009).

“They need my help, but now they’re unwilling to help me,” Spellman said.

The 21 banks receiving the most bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program made or refinanced 23 percent fewer loans in February than in October when TARP funds were first distributed, according to Treasury Department numbers. And excluding mortgage refinancing, consumer lending amongst these banks fell by one-third during that same time period, both of which suggest that “jawboning by federal officials for banks to use TARP funds to boost lending is having a limited effect” (“TARP Cash Isn’t Moving Forward,” The Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2009).

Banks Say They’re Lending, Just Not As Much As Anticipated

Investigators for the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP, the independent agency that’s in charge of analyzing how banks are spending their $200 billion in government funds, suggest that consumers like Spellman shouldn’t be so quick to write the bailout off as a failure just because they haven’t personally seen a change in lending.

Neil Barofsky, the Treasury’s special investigator for TARP, said the program has allowed banks to lend more than they would have been able to without the government assistance but that banks just haven’t increased lending as much as the government had hoped.

“A lot of banks have indicated that because they received the TARP funds, they were able to maintain or not reduce lending as much as they would have otherwise,” Barofsky said.

Banks Say Slack in Lending Is Out of Their Hands

Bank executives contend that they haven’t been able to expand lending to meet government and consumer expectations because demand for loans is down.

“I think one of the huge misconceptions out there is that banks aren’t lending,” said JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. “The lending balances are up and down based on demand…”

Dimon also pointed out that the non-bank lenders that have accounted for 75 percent of all lending have all but disappeared in this recession. Now-defunct lending giants Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers created a huge lending void when they folded, taking their large balance sheets and capital out of the financial markets. Wachovia and Washington Mutual also stepped out of the picture when they failed and were consumed by other banks.

Financial experts, on the other hand, attribute this slack in lending to the simple fact that lenders’ fear of rising consumer defaults have changed the way they lend; a good credit score is no longer enough to secure a line of credit. To this end, banks are tightening their lending restrictions and, before they issue any new loans, are analyzing consumers’ debt-to-income ratios and looking at how efficiently consumers pay off their debts, in addition to just looking at credit score.

Popularity: 5% [?]

The credit crisis has taken its toll on many consumers’ immediate ability to borrow and pay down their debt as, over the last year, banks and other lending institutions have slashed credit limits and hiked interest rates in an effort to protect themselves from rising consumer defaults. But economists predict that this vastly altered consumer credit market won’t be a fleeting change.

“In the previous two decades, our credit scores have become more important over time,” said personal finances expert Liz Pulliam Weston (“Rules Have Changed for Consumer Credit,” Chicago Tribune, April 19, 2009). “Then in the past year, it’s suddenly become critical.”

She warns that if consumers don’t pay attention to these recent credit developments they could make some costly mistakes that could negatively affect their personal finances.

1. Credit Scores

The overhauled credit markets have polarized the world of credit scores: now there’s good credit and bad credit and relatively little in between. Consumers with good credit have seen little to no effect on their financial lives, while consumers with less than stellar credit are increasingly facing higher interest rates, more stringent loan terms, and disqualification from all types of loans — home, auto, student, etc.

The Recommendation: Don’t take on any more debt and start paying off your existing debt.

2. Credit Benchmarks

The qualifications for good credit and bad credit have also shifted. About a year ago a 700 to a 720 FICO credit score — the most widely used credit score formula — was considered acceptable for most consumer loans, and a 620 FICO score was considered subprime and subject to less favorable terms. Today, consumers need a 740 to a 760 credit score to get the most consumer-friendly loan and credit card terms, and consumers with a 660 to 680 score are considered subprime.

The Recommendation: Pull your credit report to see if there are any unforeseen blips or mistakes that could have dinged your score. You can get a free copy of your credit report from each of the major reporting bureaus once a year at annualcreditreport.com. For a free estimate of your credit score, you can use some of the new credit simulators at Bankrate.com, Quizzle.com, or Credit.com to get an idea of where you stand, but if you’re considering taking out any new loan you may want to use a site like MyFICO.com to pull your actual credit score and see where you really fall on the new scale.

3. Credit Limits

Consumers with lower credit scores are having their credit limits slashed by credit card companies, which can severely throw off your credit utilization ratio — the ratio of your available credit to how much you’ve borrowed — and consequently, lower your credit score.

The Recommendation: Consumers with good credit scores, 750 and above, can try negotiating with their creditors to reinstate lines of credit, if need be. Creditors are more willing to accommodate consumers with good credit since they are harder to come by in this recession.

4. Card Cancellations

In addition to lowering limits, credit card companies are shutting down lines of credit due to low use, which may be one of the few credit changes to hurt consumers with good credit.

The Recommendation: Make sure to occasionally use the cards that you keep in the “back of your wallet” — charging some purchases at least a few times a year — and promptly pay off the balances on these cards in full.

5. FICO Score Formula Changes

One of the three major credit reporting bureaus, TransUnion, has begun using Fair Isaac’s new FICO score formula, which places more emphasis on your credit utilization and ignores overdue balances of less than $100. It’s unknown when or if the other credit bureaus, Equifax and Experian, will follow suit.

The Recommendation: Keep balances to below 30 percent of your available credit, and if possible, try to bring your credit utilization down to 10 percent to get better interest rates and more favorable borrowing terms on consumer loans.

Popularity: 15% [?]

After some 10 million consumers with poor credit saw their credit lines reduced earlier last year, responsible consumers with good credit are now seeing the same credit card limit reductions as credit card issuers move to insulate themselves from defaults, reports USA Today (“Lenders Slash Credit for Responsible Borrowers,” April 2, 2009).

Approximately 22 million cardholders — all of them consumers who have kept up on their credit card payments, have paid their bills on time, and have maintained their credit — have had their accounts closed or credit limits cut, according to a recent report by Fair Isaac, the creator of the FICO credit score.

Typically, lenders have targeted those with poor credit but as the economy has continued to unravel, lenders have changed their definition of risk, says Josh Lauer, a professor at the University of New Hampshire who is writing a book on credit reporting.

Consumers who have high credit scores tend to use their credit cards less and carry low balances, says Fair Isaac’s Careen Foster, which may be why they’re now being targeted by lenders.

And consumers who pay their bills on time aren’t a very profitable demographic for lenders since these consumers tend to pay few credit card fees, adds John Ulzheimer, president of consumer education for Credit.com. Even though these cardholders are less likely to default, lenders must still set aside reserves in case consumers stop making payments on their loans.

When credit card companies close a consumer’s accounts or reduce a consumer’s credit limit, it can increase the proportion of available credit a consumer is using and bring down his or her credit score, making it harder to qualify for any type of loan in the future, especially for a consumer who already has bad credit.

The good news for those who have been responsible with their credit is that, according to the Fair Isaac report, card companies’ recent credit line reductions have had very little impact on these consumers’ credit scores, perhaps because these consumers have had their credit limits cut by only 5 percent.

Bank analyst Meredith Whitney estimates that by 2010 banks will have slashed another $2.7 trillion of available credit on consumer cards. With lenders continuing to tighten their credit standards, Ulzheimer says cardholders, even those with good credit, can’t afford to be complacent about their credit scores.

Popularity: 6% [?]