Podcasts about Fair Credit Reporting Act

This podcast segment covers the CFPB proposing two changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act: one to regulate data brokers by requiring consumer consent for data use, and another to classify coerced debt under identity theft protections.------------------------------------------------------------------Alice Alvey, Master CMBVice President Partner Education and Training at Union Home MortgageShe handles development of their World Class Training program designed to support UHM partners and organizational effectiveness.Prior to UHM, Alice served as Senior Vice President at Indecomm leading the Indecomm-Mortgage U division, Internal QA and Compliance and SaaS technologies. Indecomm acquired Mortgage U in 2013, where Alice was President/Co-founder, providing training and consulting since 1996. Prior to MU she served as SVP of Operations at a national bank overseeing operations for wholesale, retail and correspondent from underwriting through servicing, and compliance.She has been in the trenches of mortgage lending operations from application through servicing for over 30 years. Her authoring work in training content, policies and procedures and the FHA/VA Practical guides illustrates her ability to bridge regulatory requirements with day-to-day operations.Alice has been a weekly contributor to the Lykken on Lending show since its beginning in April 2009 and has made her weekly contributions to 450+ episodes!

Join Our FREE Start Repairing Credit Challenge!Is it possible that the credit bureau Experian acted illegally when it dealt with your dispute letters?The CFPB certainly thinks so, and they just sued Experian for its shady practices in handling dispute investigations! This lawsuit is a huge deal for anyone looking to dispute errors on their credit report, and today, I will explain everything you need to know about this case and how it could affect your credit score. Plus, I'll share the 5 best ways to make your dispute letters more effective. Ready to fight back against shady credit bureaus? Tune in! P.S. Don't forget to add THIS to your dispute letters:“In light of the recent lawsuit filed against Experian by the CFPB, I am requesting a thorough and fair investigation of the disputed information on my credit report. The lawsuit highlights concerns regarding compliance with federal consumer protection laws and the accuracy of credit reporting practices. As a consumer, I trust Experian will uphold its responsibility under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure that all information reported is accurate, complete, and verifiable. If the disputed information cannot be verified as accurate after a fair investigation, I request its prompt deletion from my credit file. This request is made in good faith to ensure my credit report reflects truthful and accurate information.” Key Takeaways:00:00 Intro 01:02 CFPB Sues Experian03:01 Shady Credit Bureau Practices Exposed06:59 5 Ways to Make Your Dispute Letters More Effective 11:41 AI Tool for Generating Dispute Letters 12:29 My Final Point13:07 OutroAdditional Resources:Get a free trial to Credit Repair CloudGet my free credit repair training  How Credit Repair Millionaires Fight Stall LettersMake sure to subscribe so you stay up to date with our latest episodes.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis and Michael Lacy, Consumer Financial Services Practice Group leader, introduce Troutman Pepper Locke's annual Year in Review and Look Ahead publication. The publication covers 17 critical areas, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and FinTech. This concise and accessible report offers valuable insights for clients, practitioners, and regulators. Tune in to stay informed and ahead of the curve.

In today's episode, we discuss the CFPB's recent proposed data broker rule—a proposal that would greatly expand the reach of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On December 3, the CFPB issued a proposed rule promoted as one that would require companies that sell data about income or financial tier, credit history, credit score or debt payments to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The proposal would make it clear that when data brokers sell certain sensitive consumer information, they are “consumer reporting agencies” under the FCRA. That would require them to comply with accuracy requirements. It also would require them to provide consumers access to their information. However, the proposal is much broader than a data broker rule, and the podcast explores the significant breadth of the proposal. The rule might face an uncertain future, since it was issued by current CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and pushes beyond the boundaries of the FCRA. Chopra's aggressive regulatory regime is opposed by the Trump Administration. Joining us today is Dan Smith, president and CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, which represents the consumer data reporting industry. The host of the discussion is Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years, and now senior counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr. Joining the discussion are two Ballard Spahr partners: Richard Andreano, the practice leader of our mortgage banking group at Ballard Spahr and John Culhane. In this episode, we will discuss the key aspects of the landmark proposed rule, such as: 1.    The proposal being much broader than one addressing the sale of personal information to various parties, including stalkers, spies and scammers.  2.    The fact that the proposal does not even define what is a data broker.  3.    How the proposal would significantly change the concept of what constitutes a consumer report, including the proposal to treat credit header information as a consumer report.  4.    How the proposal would change the concept of what constitutes a consumer reporting agency.  5.    Requirements that the proposal would add to the written authorization permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report, including requirements regarding revocation of the authorization.  6.    How the proposal would modify the requirements to rely on the legitimate business need permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report.  7.    Whether the CFPB actually has legal authority to essentially rewrite the FCRA.

This Day in Legal History: District of Columbia Suffrage ActOn this day in legal history, January 8, 1867, the U.S. Congress overrode President Andrew Johnson's veto to enact the District of Columbia Suffrage Act. This landmark legislation granted African American men the right to vote in the nation's capital, making it the first federal law to extend voting rights to Black men. This milestone occurred three years before the ratification of the 15th Amendment, which would prohibit racial discrimination in voting nationwide.  The Act was a significant step during the Reconstruction era, as the United States grappled with integrating millions of formerly enslaved individuals into its civic life. By enfranchising Black men in Washington, D.C., Congress set an example for the expansion of voting rights elsewhere in the country. However, the process was not without contention. President Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat, opposed the bill, reflecting his broader resistance to Reconstruction policies that aimed to promote racial equality.  Congress's decision to override Johnson's veto demonstrated its determination to lead Reconstruction efforts and address the injustices of slavery. This vote also highlighted the tensions between the legislative and executive branches over how best to rebuild the nation after the Civil War.  The District of Columbia Suffrage Act stands as a pivotal moment in the fight for civil rights, symbolizing the beginning of federal measures to ensure greater political inclusion for African Americans during a transformative period in American history.The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a lawsuit against Experian Plc, alleging the credit reporting company failed to properly investigate consumer disputes and ensure the accuracy of information on credit reports. According to the CFPB, Experian did not adequately collect or relay dispute information to data furnishers, sometimes accepting illogical or unreliable responses from credit card companies and debt collectors. These practices led to inaccurate information on credit reports, which negatively impacted consumers' credit scores, potentially resulting in higher loan interest rates, limited housing opportunities, and employment challenges.  The CFPB accused Experian of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by conducting inadequate dispute investigations. Director Rohit Chopra criticized Experian for "sham investigations" and emphasized the importance of compliance with federal laws.  Experian has denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit an example of regulatory overreach and claiming the agency did not respond to prior communications. The company highlighted its history of working with the CFPB to improve dispute processes.  The lawsuit builds on prior CFPB actions against Experian, including a $3 million fine in 2017 for misleading consumers about its credit scores. The current case alleges persistent systemic failures in Experian's dispute handling and reporting processes.Experian Sued by CFPB for Botching Consumer Data Disputes (2)A Supreme Court case this week could determine TikTok's future in the United States, pitting national security concerns against free speech rights. President-elect Donald Trump has asked the Court to block a pending U.S. ban on the app, citing First Amendment concerns, while many Republican lawmakers and state attorneys general argue for upholding the ban. The law, passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden, requires TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban by January 19, over fears of Chinese government access to American user data.TikTok and ByteDance contend the law infringes on free speech, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent for banning platforms with foreign ties. Trump, in a reversal of his earlier stance, now opposes a ban and sees TikTok as politically valuable. The Justice Department defends the law, citing national security risks, while Republican attorneys general argue that TikTok's ties to China pose significant dangers.The Court's decision could have far-reaching implications for digital platform regulation and internet freedom in the U.S. and beyond. If upheld, experts warn other foreign-backed platforms, such as Telegram, could face similar scrutiny. Meanwhile, tech giants Apple and Google have been asked to prepare for TikTok's removal from app stores, potentially rendering the app obsolete over time without updates.TikTok's fate divides Trump and fellow Republicans as Supreme Court action looms | ReutersThe state of Alaska has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, alleging violations of a Congressional mandate to permit oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The lawsuit challenges the Interior Department's December 2024 decision to impose restrictive conditions on drilling leases in the refuge's coastal plain, arguing the limits make development impractical on the 400,000 acres set for auction. Alaska seeks to overturn the decision and prevent the leases from being issued with the restrictions.Governor Mike Dunleavy criticized the Biden administration's stance, claiming it undermines U.S. energy independence by restricting access to domestic resources. Alaska argues the restrictions, combined with the administration's earlier cancellations of leases granted during Donald Trump's presidency, significantly reduce expected revenue from ANWR development.  The Biden administration has prioritized environmental protection for the 19.6-million-acre refuge, home to species like polar bears and caribou. This legal dispute is the latest in a series of lawsuits from Alaska opposing federal efforts to limit drilling in ANWR. The battle reflects ongoing tensions between environmental priorities and energy development in the region, a long-standing political flashpoint.Alaska sues Biden administration over oil and gas leases in Arctic refuge | ReutersIn my column for this week, I talk about a facility fee charged for nonresident performers and athletes in Pittsburgh. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of Pittsburgh's so-called “jock tax,” a 3% fee imposed on income earned by nonresident athletes and entertainers at publicly funded venues. This case raises complex questions about tax uniformity under the state constitution, as opponents argue the fee unfairly targets a specific group of workers.  The city contends the fee achieves fairness by equalizing tax burdens between nonresidents and residents, who already pay a combined 3% in local taxes. Without this fee, nonresident performers would enjoy a tax advantage over residents, who contribute to funding public infrastructure and services that benefit everyone using the city's venues.  Critics claim the tax violates uniformity principles by singling out nonresidents in certain professions, and asking them to pay 3% despite not receiving access to services ostensibly paid for by the tax like the local school system. But taxation has never operated strictly as a direct exchange for services rendered. Much like H.L.A. Hart's “No Vehicles in the Park” thought experiment, interpreting “uniformity” in taxation requires considering intent. The fee's purpose is to ensure nonresidents contribute their fair share for the public resources they use, aligning with broader fairness goals rather than rigid formalism.  Rejecting the fee would create an inequitable system where nonresidents effectively have their use of public resources subsidized by residents. For Pittsburgh and other cities balancing local budgets, the facility fee represents a practical, equitable solution that respects the principles of shared responsibility.Pittsburgh 'Jock Tax' Facilitates Parity and Should Be Upheld This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v Kirtz. In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States? The case was decided on February 8, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. As a sovereign entity, the United States is generally immune from suits seeking money damages—under the doctrine known as “sovereign immunity”—unless Congress chooses to waive that immunity. Courts understand Congress to have so chosen only if they find “the language of the statute” is “unmistakably clear” in allowing such suits. One way a statute may have such “unmistakably clear” language is when it creates a cause of action and explicitly “authorizes suit against a government on that claim.” The FCRA satisfies this stringent test. The FCRA's requirements apply to “persons” who, like the federal government here, furnish information to consumer reporting agencies. Sections 1681n and 1681o create a cause of action for money damages to consumers injured by “any person” who willfully or negligently fails to comply with the statute's directive. Section 1681a provides a definition of “person” that includes government agencies, which applies to the entire Act. In the presence of such “unmistakably clear” language, no separate waiver provision is needed. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this special crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and FCRA Focus, host Kim Phan is joined by fellow Troutman Pepper partner Stefanie Jackman and Michelle Macartney, managing partner and chief compliance officer at Bridgeforce. Together, they delve into the complexities of reporting collections activity to consumer reporting agencies. Michelle shares her extensive experience in consumer reporting compliance, offering valuable insights into the challenges and best practices for maintaining data accuracy and handling disputes. The discussion also covers the latest CFPB draft rulemaking on medical debt and its implications for consumer reporting agencies, end users, and furnishers. Tune in to learn how to navigate the intersection of FCRA and debt collection as well as discover effective compliance strategies to mitigate risks in today's regulatory environment. Don't miss this informative episode packed with practical tips and industry updates!

Going back to college means it's time to evaluate credit cards and financing options for students and families. We break down the different tools available (and their short- and long-term impacts) in this episode of Making Cents of Money. Show Notes: Unbiased sources of consumer education from the CFPB: - Student banking and college credit card marketing agreements: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/student-banking/ - Your Money, Your Goals toolkit (p. 121 of the downloadable toolkit has a comparison of paying for the costs of an unexpected car repair with emergency savings, a credit card, or a payday loan): https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/educator-tools/your-money-your-goals/toolkit/ Previous Making Cents of Money episodes on Credit: - Credit Reports Update (ep. 74): https://blogs.uofi.uillinois.edu/view/7550/1222872163 - What's a Credit Report Anyway? (ep. 67): https://blogs.uofi.uillinois.edu/view/7550/171138189 - Credit Scores (ep. 51): https://blogs.uofi.uillinois.edu/view/7550/343469214 - Choosing a Credit Card (ep. 43): https://blogs.uofi.uillinois.edu/view/7550/295268937 - Credit Access (ep. 42): https://blogs.uofi.uillinois.edu/view/7550/203994282 - Conscious Credit (ep. 15): https://blogs.uofi.uillinois.edu/view/7550/1450729729 - Understanding Credit (ep. 5): https://blogs.uofi.uillinois.edu/view/7550/270248943 Get Savvy Webinars - Your Financial Tool Chest – We discussed Buy Now, Pay Later tools starting at 45:35 in the YouTube video: https://youtu.be/XdUgsotxCqE?feature=shared&t=2735 - Build Credit to Your Advantage: https://youtu.be/FZGqbTavfsY?feature=shared - Mastering the Consumer Credit Game on December 5, 2024, at 12 PM – Register at https://go.uillinois.edu/getsavvywebinars Legislation related to Credit Cards: - Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (Credit CARD Act): https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/credit-card-accountability-responsibility-disclosure-act-2009-credit-card-act - Fair Credit Reporting Act: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/fair-credit-reporting-act Research on Credit Use: - Blankson, C., Paswan, A., & Boakye, K. G. (2012). College students' consumption of credit cards. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(7), 567-585. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02652321211274327/full/html - D'innocenzio, A., & Lewis, C. (2024, July 30). Stores lure back-to-school shoppers with deals and “buy now, pay later” plans. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/backtoschool-shopping-deals-inflation-c7fc6041e4d34cabc2edbfbc556ef667 - Hayhoe, C., Leach, L. J., Allen, M., & Edwards, R. (2005). Credit cards held by college students. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 16(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253767760_Credit_Cards_Held_by_College_Students - Shupe, C., Li, G., & Fulford, S. (2023). Consumer Use of Buy Now, Pay Later Insights from the CFPB Making Ends Meet Survey. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Office of Research Reports Series, (23-1). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4399626

On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CFPB's funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This two-part episode repurposes a recent webinar. In Part II, we first discuss the CFPB's launch of Fair Credit Reporting Act rulemaking, proposed rule to supervise larger payment providers, proposed rule on personal financial data rights, and interpretive rule on buy-now-pay-later.  We next discuss the operation of the Congressional Review Act and its potential impact on final CFPB rules if the November 2024 election results in a change in Administrations. We then discuss the impact of the SCOTUS decision on pending CFPB enforcement actions, the expected proliferation of new CFPB investigations and enforcement actions, and the CFPB's announced hiring binge. We conclude by sharing our thoughts on what companies can do to prepare for an uptick in CFPB activity and how the CFPB's increased staffing is likely to impact which companies will be targeted. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion joined by John Culhane and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

Dear Dash Hounds, join Beth and Kelly as we try to pull the curtain open on the Wonderful Wizard of credit scores. Do you know your credit score? Do you care? Has it ruined your life? We talk about many things on Strange Country from periods to sex to murder and now, the most secretive of things–money. ‘Mericans don't talk openly about their money issues, and surprise! That is not good practice. We are stressed and worried and in debt, and there's a reason why. Find out today on Strange Country. Thanks for listening. It is an act of love, and sometimes all you need is love. Theme music: Big White Lie by A Cast of Thousands. Works Cited Campisi, Natalie. “From Inherent Racial Bias to Incorrect Data—The Problems With Current Credit Scoring Models.” Forbes, 26 February 2021, https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/from-inherent-racial-bias-to-incorrect-data-the-problems-with-current-credit-scoring-models/. Accessed 18 March 2024. “Fair Credit Reporting Act.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act. Accessed 18 March 2024. Fiano, Liane. “Common errors people find on their credit report - and how to get them fixed.” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 5 February 2019, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/common-errors-credit-report-and-how-get-them-fixed/. Accessed 18 March 2024. Frazier, Mya. “The High Cost of Bad Credit.” The New York Times, 7 June 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/07/magazine/bad-credit-repair.html. Accessed 18 March 2024. Furletti, Mark. “Secret History Of The Credit Card - More To Explore | FRONTLINE.” Secret History Of The Credit Card - More To Explore | FRONTLINE | PBS, 23 November 2004, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/scores.html. Accessed 18 March 2024. Johnson, Holly. “8 Ways You're Hurting Your Credit Score Without Knowing It.” Forbes, 28 June 2021, https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-score/8-ways-youre-hurting-your-credit-score-without-knowing-it/. Accessed 18 March 2024. Nova, Annie. YouTube: Home, 3 June 2009, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/25/bernie-sanders-wants-to-overhaul-the-countrys-credit-reporting-system.html. Accessed 18 March 2024. Trainor, Sean. “Your Credit Score's Long History, From Espionage to Algorithms.” Time, 22 July 2015, https://time.com/3961676/history-credit-scores/. Accessed 18 March 2024. White, Alexandria. “90% of Americans Stress About Money, According to Study Results.” CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/select/why-americans-are-stressed-about-money/. Accessed 18 March 2024. Wilbers, Pippin. “How Inflation Affects Car Loan Rates.” Bankrate, 31 January 2024, https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/how-inflation-affects-auto-loan-rates/#why. Accessed 18 March 2024.

                                            Lawsuit Against New York for Child Support.                       ATTENTION, 1099 Workers and Independent Contractors.Legal Action against New York: A Vital Message for 1099 Workers and Independent Contractors.Attention all 1099 workers and independent contractors! You now have the opportunity to pursue legal action against the state of New York regarding child support matters.Our program, Child Support Lawsuit Simplified, aims to equip you with the necessary strategies and techniques to navigate through the complexities of the legal system. We understand the challenges you may face, including judicial misconduct from both state and federal levels.Our guarantee is simple: empowerment. We empower you to assert your rights and seek justice in child support disputes. With our guidance, you can liberate yourself from unfair treatment and ensure that your rights are upheld throughout the legal process.Take control of your situation today and join us in our mission to advocate for fair and just child support practices. Your rights matter, and we're here to help you protect them.

EXPLAINED: LAWSUIT Against The New York for 1099, Independent Contractors And Workers. (c)Copyright, 2021-2030Announcement: Legal Options for 1099 Workers and Independent Contractors in New YorkTo all 1099 workers and independent contractors in New York, listen up! You have the chance to take legal action concerning child support issues in the state.Introducing our initiative, Child Support Lawsuit Simplified. Our goal is to provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to effectively maneuver the legal landscape. We recognize the hurdles you might encounter, including instances of judicial misconduct at both state and federal levels.Our program isn't just about offering advice – it's about empowerment. We aim to empower you with strategies and techniques to advocate for your rights and navigate the complexities of child support disputes with confidence.Join us as we work to ensure fairness and justice in child support matters. Your voice matters, and we're here to support you every step of the way.Child Support Lawsuit Simplified. We teach you strategies and techniques to free yourself of judicial misconduct from the State and Federal. The guarantee is YOURS.

                                                          Avoid License Suspension:                                         Use This New Jersey Case in Any State!Child Support Lawsuit Simplified. We teach you strategies and techniques to free yourself of judicial misconduct from the State and Federal. The guarantee is YOURS.Facing a driver's license suspension due to unpaid child support can feel like an insurmountable obstacle, especially when the ability to work or attend school hangs in the balance. In this crucial video, I delve into how a landmark New Jersey case, Kavas vs. DMV of Mercer County, has set a precedent that can aid you in contesting similar suspensions across all 50 states. This case underscores the violation of due process and fundamental fairness in the automatic suspension of driver's licenses, a vital issue for anyone struggling with child support payments due to unemployment or illness.We explore the intricate balance between enforcing child support obligations and ensuring individuals retain their ability to earn a living. The ruling by Judge Mary Jacobson in 2019 has opened a pathway for fathers and families nationwide to challenge unjust suspensions, emphasizing the importance of due process and the right to a fair hearing. This video is not just a summary of the case but a comprehensive guide on applying its principles to fight for your rights in any state, offering a beacon of hope for those feeling trapped by the system. I also provide a detailed breakdown of child support as a federal program, highlighting the massive financial implications and the states leading in child support collections.Your support fuels our research and content creation, helping us bring these invaluable insights to you. If you find this video educational, please consider donating to our channel. Every contribution, no matter the size, makes a significant difference. For personalized guidance, don't hesitate to schedule a consultation, and for more empowering content, subscribe to our channel. Together, we can navigate the complexities of family law, advocating for fairness and justice in the child support system.Support the Show.Login into our => https://childsupport.newzenler.com

                                     Season 6 Episode 9 -   Essential Information for Fathers.In "Child Support vs. TANF: What Fathers Must Know," we dive into the intricate world of family law, focusing on the distinctions and connections between Child Support and Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF). If you're a father navigating these waters, understanding these concepts isn't just beneficial—it's crucial. Our discussion brings clarity to how federal assistance impacts child support obligations, and we detail historical legislation like the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act to elucidate the evolution of welfare and child support.Our exploration is not just theoretical; we ground our insights in real-world applications and legislative frameworks, such as Title 4D of the Social Security Act and specific Supreme Court cases like Blessing vs. Freestone. We aim to empower you with knowledge, whether you're facing judicial challenges or seeking to understand your rights and responsibilities in the realm of family law.For those seeking deeper engagement, we invite you to connect with us via email at Chris_h29@protonmail.com and explore further content on our website. Together, let's navigate the complexities of child support and empower ourselves with the knowledge and confidence to advocate for our rights and responsibilities.Remember, understanding your legal standing and options is the first step towards effective self-representation and achieving the best possible outcomes for you and your family. Join us on this journey, and let's unlock the doors to legal empowerment and self-advocacy.

              What Is The difference? Understanding Custody and Child Support.Email: Chrish289@protonmail.com            (c)Copyright, 2021-2030Child support is the financial aid one parent provides to the other for the upbringing of their child. It encompasses various expenses essential for the child's well-being, including education, healthcare, and basic living needs. Custody, on the other hand, entails both legal and physical responsibility for the child's care and decision-making. It determines where the child resides primarily and who holds the authority to make important decisions regarding their upbringing.While child support primarily deals with financial contributions, custody arrangements dictate the practical aspects of the child's daily life and upbringing. Both child support and custody are crucial components of ensuring the overall welfare and stability of the child's upbringing.

                                            Sue Credit Agencies for Child Support Errors: Discover the groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling that empowers consumers to take legal action against credit bureaus for inaccuracies in child support reporting! In this pivotal video, I delve into the monumental decision by Justice Neil Gorsuch, revealing how individuals can now challenge federal agencies like TransUnion and Equifax, ensuring their child support records are accurate. This ruling, stemming from the case Department of Revenue vs. Kertz, dated February 8, 2024, marks a significant victory for consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Learn the critical steps to file a lawsuit against credit agencies, the essentials of PRO SE litigation, and how this Supreme Court judgment could affect your child support case. Whether you're battling errors on your credit report or seeking a refresh on child support procedures, this video offers a wealth of knowledge aimed at empowering you to navigate the complexities of family law and judicial misconduct confidently.Don't let inaccuracies tarnish your financial reputation. Understand your right to dispute child support errors and the pathway to holding credit bureaus accountable. I also share insights into self-representation, emphasizing the importance of constitutional laws in protecting your rights. For further support and detailed guides on tackling child support challenges, consider donating to our research efforts or scheduling a discussion. Stay connected with our community on social media and access exclusive resources tailored to aid your journey through family law intricacies.

The Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Corner Post's lawsuit challenging a Federal Reserve regulation, ruling that the six-year statute of limitations to challenge the rule had already expired. However, Corner Post did not exist until more than six years after the rule issued, and it filed suit less than four years after opening for business. NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, urging SCOTUS to allow the lawsuit to go forward in such circumstances and protect judicial review. NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins joins Mark and Vec to go over the oral argument at the Supreme Court last week in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“There are 18 common types of background checks employers use to verify a new hire. The checks can include: Criminal history Past employment verification Education verification Reference check Drug screening Sexual offenses check Credit background check Social media behavior check Driving record Professional license and certifications check Social security number trace/identity check Global sanctions check Civil offenses check Bankruptcy check Financial regulations check Psychometric tests International background check Gamer profile check Each check is briefly explained along with its purpose and how it helps employers make informed hiring decisions.[1] A background check is a process a person or company uses to verify that an individual is who they claim to be, and this provides an opportunity to check and confirm the validity of someone's criminal record, education, employment history, and other activities from their past. The frequency, purpose, and legitimacy of background checks vary among countries, industries, and individuals. An employment background check typically takes place when someone applies for a job, but it can also happen at any time the employer deems necessary. A variety of methods are used to complete these checks including comprehensive database search and personal references. Regulation edit [18] The Financial Services Authority states in their Training & Competence guidance that regulated firms should have: Adequacy of procedures for taking into account knowledge and skills of potential recruits for the role Adequacy of procedures for obtaining sufficient information about previous activities and training Adequacy of procedures for ensuring that individuals have passed appropriate exams or have appropriate exemptions Adequacy of procedures for assessing competence of individuals for sales roles The Financial Services Authority's statutory objectives: Protecting consumers Maintaining market confidence Promoting public awareness Reducing financial crime. Restriction and laws on Background Check Arrest and conviction records: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Cal. Lab. Code § 432.7; Cal. Lab. Code § 432.8; Cal. Pen. Code § 290.46(k)(2); 775 ILCS 5/2-103; Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act, 820 ILCS 75/15; N.Y. Correct. Law § 752; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (15), (16); 18 Pa.C.S. § 9125 Credit/financial checks: Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.13; Cal. Lab. Code § 1024.5; 820 ILCS 70/10 Health checks/medical screening: Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff, et seq.; Cal. Lab. Code § 132a Social media: Cal. Lab. Code § 980; 820 ILCS 55/10(a) Record disposal: 16 CFR Part 682 Record keeping: 29 CFR Part 160 Records/information obtained from consumer reporting agencies, including but not limited to education and employment records, credit and financial records, and social media: Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.; Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.13(a)(6); Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.18(a)(7); Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.53 Political affiliation: D.C. Code § 2–1402.11; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 111.321 Polygraph tests: Employee Polygraph Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2002, 2006; Cal. Lab. Code § 432.2; 225 ILCS 430/14.1; N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 733–739; 18 Pa.C.S. § 7321. Many employers choose to search the most common records such as criminal records, driving records, and education verification. Other searches such as sex offender registry, credential verification, skills assessment, reference checks, credit reports and Patriot Act searches are becoming increasingly common.[22] Many commercial sites will offer specific searches to employers for a fee. Services like these will actually perform the checks, supply the company with adverse action letters, and ensure compliance throughout the process.” -Wikipedia. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

The brand-new, unanimous opinion of the Court in Dept. of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, decided February 8, 2024.   Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts

In United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, the Supreme Court considered whether private individuals can sue the federal government for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government is subject to suit under the FCRA. This decision will now allow consumers to sue one of the nation's largest credit reporters whenever it gives false information about them to credit reporting agencies. Mark and Vec talk about Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz and the Supreme Court's decision.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join hosts Dave Gettings, Kim Phan, and Chris Willis in this special crossover episode of FCRA Focus and The Consumer Finance Podcast in the first installment of our Year in Review and a Look Ahead series. They are joined by guests Cindy Hanson and Alan Wingfield, partners at Troutman Pepper, who share their insights on the most impactful developments in background screening and credit reporting in 2023. Listen in as they discuss industry challenges and opportunities, the implications of proposed regulatory changes, and what to expect in the future. Stay tuned for the next episode of our Year in Review and a Look Ahead series on The Consumer Finance Podcast, providing valuable insights for anyone involved in consumer finance.To download a copy of the Consumer Financial Services Year in Review and a Look Ahead, please click here. For a list of our upcoming webinars, visit our Troutman Pepper Insights page. And to make sure you don't miss another episode of this podcast, please click subscribe.

NCUA Chairman Todd M. Harper's Written Testimony Before the House Financial Services CommitteeNCUA Chairman Todd M. Harper testifying before the House Financial Services Committee in 2023.Chairman McHenry, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the work of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).The NCUA insures deposits at federally insured credit unions, protects credit union members, and charters and regulates federal credit unions. The NCUA also protects the safety and soundness of the credit union system by identifying, monitoring, and managing risks to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund). In my testimony today, I will discuss the state of the credit union system, recent efforts by the agency to strengthen the system, and several legislative requests.State of the Credit Union SystemThe credit union system over the last year has remained largely stable in its performance and relatively resilient against economic disruptions. However, during the last few quarters, the NCUA has seen growing signs of financial strain on credit union balance sheets and in household budgets. Economists are also forecasting an economic slowdown as the lagged effects of elevated interest rates take hold. Each of these developments could affect credit union performance in the coming quarters.Over the same period, the NCUA has also seen growing stress within the system because of a rise in interest rate and liquidity risks. In fact, this financial stress is reflected in the increasing number of composite CAMELS code 3, 4, and 5 credit unions.1 Assets in composite CAMELS code 3 institutions increased sizably in the second quarter, especially among those complex credit unions with more than $500 million in assets. Such increases may well continue in future quarters. We have additionally seen more credit unions fall into the composite CAMELS code 4 and 5 ratings during the second quarter.Credit Union System PerformanceAs of June 30, 2023, the system's net worth ratio stood at 10.63 percent. There was continued year-over-year growth in assets and lending, with system assets surpassing $2.2 trillion and outstanding loans at more than $1.5 trillion. Although insured shares and deposits decreased slightly compared to the previous quarter, they stood almost 2 percent higher than one year earlier.Second quarter data also demonstrate some indications of growing consumer financial stress. The delinquency rate for loans rose slightly to 63 basis points, although it remains below historic averages. Credit cards and automobile loans, however, show increased delinquency levels at 154 and 67 basis points, respectively. Additionally, net charge-off levels have risen over the last year, returning to pre-pandemic averages.Additionally, funding costs for credit unions have increased significantly in the rising interest rate environment. Credit unions have increased their issuances of time deposits, leading to total interest expenses growing substantially over the year. However, the industry's return on average assets remains sound at 79 basis points. Together, these numbers show the credit union system continues to rest on a solid footing.External Factors Affecting the SystemThe NCUA is closely monitoring the financial markets and the economy as the current environment has created challenges for some consumers and credit unions. Inflation and interest rates are affecting household budgets, which could lead to an increase in credit risk in future quarters. In addition, the prevalence of hybrid work environments has placed pressure on commercial real estate lending. While the credit union system overall has modest exposure to this type of lending, the NCUA is closely monitoring individual credit unions with material exposure to commercial real estate.The rise in interest rates has also increased liquidity and interest rate risks in the credit union system, including at several of the 421 federally insured credit unions with more than $1 billion in assets. Accordingly, the NCUA has emphasized the importance of liquidity risk management and contingency planning in its industry communications and will continue to ensure credit unions conduct liquidity and asset-liability management planning to address current challenges and future uncertainties.With respect to all these risks and to protect the Share Insurance Fund against potential losses, the NCUA will continue to vigilantly monitor credit union performance through the examination process, offsite monitoring, and tailored supervision. The NCUA will also, when appropriate, take action to protect credit union members and their deposits.Share Insurance Fund PerformanceBacked by the full faith and credit of the United States, the Share Insurance Fund provides insurance coverage for individual accounts at federally insured credit unions up to $250,000.2 As of June 30, 2023, the Share Insurance Fund insured $1.7 trillion in deposits and shares. Notably, the Share Insurance Fund protects nearly 92 percent of total share deposits in the credit union system. In comparison, uninsured shares and deposits equaled approximately $160 billion in the second quarter or 8 percent of total share deposits.The Share Insurance Fund continues to perform well, with no premiums currently expected. As of June 30, 2023, the Share Insurance Fund reported a year-to-date net income of $79 million, a net position of $20.3 billion, and an equity ratio of 1.27 percent.3 The NCUA projects that the equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund will end the year at 1.27 percent, which is sufficient but below the 1.33 percent normal operating level target set by the NCUA Board.Given the liquidity events in 2023, economic conditions, and the growing stress in the credit union system from liquidity and interest rate risks, the NCUA Board decided to build up the liquidity position of the Share Insurance Fund to a targeted amount of $4 billion. The Share Insurance Fund reached that target in September. The NCUA Board continues to monitor liquidity in the Share Insurance Fund.State of the Central Liquidity FacilityThe COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures, interest rate volatility, and liquidity risk have all underscored the importance of the NCUA's Central Liquidity Facility (CLF).4 The CLF is an important tool and acts as a shock absorber when unexpected liquidity events occur.Under the NCUA's regulations, credit unions with assets more than $250 million must have access to a federal emergency liquidity source as part of their contingency funding plans. This federal emergency liquidity backstop can be the CLF, the Federal Reserve's Discount Window, or both. Credit unions with less than $250 million in assets are not required to have membership with a contingent federal liquidity source; however, they must identify external sources as part of their liquidity policy.5As of September 30, 2023, the CLF had 399 consumer credit union members, providing $19.8 billion in lending capacity. These credit unions range in asset size from less than $50 million to more than $10 billion. Their access to the CLF helps protect approximately $360 billion in credit union members' assets.The more members the CLF has, the more effective it is as a liquidity facility. As of December 2022, the CLF had a much greater total membership of 3,673 consumer credit unions with a combined $537 billion in member assets and a lending capacity of $27.5 billion. This rapid decline in membership assets followed the expiration of the temporary statutory enhancements that: Increased the CLF's maximum legal borrowing authority; Permitted access for corporate credit unions, as agent members, to borrow for their own needs; Provided greater flexibility and affordability to agent members to join the CLF to serve smaller groups of their covered institutions; and Gave the NCUA Board the clarity and flexibility about the loans it can approve by removing the phrase, “the Board shall not approve an application for credit the intent of which is to expand credit union portfolios.” Among other benefits, these statutory provisions facilitated agent membership of corporate credit unions. These enhancements, however, ended on January 1, 2023, resulting in 3,322 credit unions with less than $250 million in assets losing access to the CLF. Consequently, the CLF's borrowing capacity has decreased by almost $10 billion.To address this expiration and growing liquidity risks, the NCUA Board has unanimously requested that Congress allow corporate credit unions to purchase capital stock in the CLF to help smaller credit unions access to the facility. This change would make the CLF more affordable for corporate credit unions subscribing for a subset of their members. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the CLF reforms at no cost to taxpayers.6NCUA's Efforts to Protect and Strengthen the Credit Union SystemIn recent months, the NCUA has undertaken several actions to respond to cybersecurity risk; support minority depository institutions; enhance the credit union system's and the NCUA's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; and consider and adopt new rules to strengthen the system.Enhancing CybersecurityCybersecurity threats within the financial services industry are high and expected to remain so for the foreseeable future. To maintain vigilance against these threats, the NCUA is committed to ensuring consistency, transparency, and accountability in its cybersecurity examination program and related activities.Earlier this year, the NCUA deployed its updated, scalable, and risk-focused Information Security Examination (ISE) procedures. The ISE examination initiative offers flexibility for credit unions while providing examiners with standardized review steps to facilitate advanced data collection and analysis. Together with the agency's voluntary Automated Cybersecurity Evaluation Toolbox maturity assessment, the new ISE procedures will assist the NCUA in protecting the credit union system from cyberattacks.In addition, the NCUA's recently implemented cyber incident reporting rule has proven to be helpful to the agency and credit union industry.7 The final rule requires a federally insured credit union to report a substantial cyber incident to the NCUA as soon as possible but no later than 72 hours after the credit union reasonably believes a reportable cyber incident has occurred. In the first 30 days after the rule became effective, the NCUA received 146 incident reports, more than it had received in total in the previous year. More than 60 percent of these incident reports involve third-party service providers and credit union service organizations (CUSOs).The NCUA also actively communicates with credit unions about the increased likelihood of cyberattacks resulting from geopolitical and other cyber events. Credit unions of all sizes are a part of the U.S. critical infrastructure and should implement appropriate controls in the technology they use to deliver member services.Maintaining Consumer Financial ProtectionAn important part of the NCUA's mission is to examine credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets for compliance with consumer financial protection laws. The agency's consumer compliance efforts are integral to maintaining a safe-and-sound credit union system.In 2023, the agency's consumer financial protection supervisory priorities have included overdraft protection, fair lending, residential real estate appraisal bias, and Truth in Lending Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act compliance. The NCUA also prioritized examining credit union compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act, including disclosure requirements.In addition, the agency increased its review of overdraft programs and non-sufficient funds fee practices at credit unions to assess whether providing those services and charging the fees are potentially unfair practices. The NCUA's supervision of the services aims to create a more equitable system that supports financial stability for credit union members, improves transparency, and advances the statutory mission of credit unions to meet the credit and savings needs of their members, especially those of modest means.8Furthermore, the NCUA conducts targeted fair lending examinations and supervision at federal credit unions to assess compliance with federal fair lending laws and regulations. These reviews are critical to identifying discrimination and fostering financial inclusion. In August 2023, the NCUA encouraged the industry to review and comply with previously issued guidance addressing prohibited discriminatory practices in automated underwriting systems. Specifically, the agency encouraged credit unions to review system parameters to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation.In addition to appraisal bias oversight examinations, the NCUA joined with the other Federal Financial Institution Examination Council agencies in June to issue proposed guidance for reconsideration of value for residential real estate valuations. The proposed guidance advises on policies that financial institutions may implement to allow consumers to provide information that may not have been considered during an appraisal or if deficiencies are identified in the original appraisal.As part of its consumer financial protection efforts, the NCUA's Consumer Assistance Center also resolves consumer complaints against federal credit unions with total assets up to $10 billion and, in certain instances, federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. In 2022, the Consumer Assistance Center responded to 10,589 written complaints, 1,842 inquiries, and 30,232 telephone calls from consumers and credit unions concerning consumer financial protection regulations.Finally, the NCUA regularly presents webinars promoting financial literacy and financial inclusion. Over the past year, the agency has hosted webinars on appraisal bias, elder financial abuse, and minority depository institutions. In addition, the agency participates in national financial literacy initiatives, including the interagency Financial Literacy and Education Commission.Supporting Minority Depository InstitutionsSupporting minority depository institution (MDI) credit unions is a longstanding priority for the NCUA. MDI credit unions represent approximately 10 percent of federally insured credit unions, and there are presently 498 such credit unions. These MDIs have more than five million members and exceed $66 billion in assets.In 2015, the NCUA established its MDI Preservation Program and has since sought new ways to assist MDI credit unions, their members, and the communities they serve. In 2022, the NCUA launched the Small Credit Union and MDI Support Program, allocating resources to assist MDIs in addressing operational challenges such as staff training, examinations, and improving earnings. In 2023, the NCUA allocated 10,000 staff hours across its three regional offices for the program.This year, the agency also issued customized guidance to examiners to provide insights into MDIs' unique business models and members' needs. The guidance assists examiners in understanding MDIs' distinct business model compared to other mainstream financial institutions by providing instruction on how to use MDI peer metrics instead of traditional peer metrics.Notably, while MDIs tend to be smaller institutions, they have relatively strong financial performance. As of the end of the second quarter of this year, MDIs averaged about $133 million in total assets, yet their return on average assets and net worth ratios were higher than federally insured credit unions overall and equal to credit unions with assets exceeding $1 billion. Meanwhile, their charge-off levels were consistent with the levels reported for both larger credit unions and credit unions overall.Congress recently authorized all MDIs to be eligible for Community Development Revolving Loan Fund grants and loans. Previously, MDIs required the low-income credit union designation to qualify. In the 2023 grant round, 42 MDIs received more than $1.4 million in technical assistance grants. The amount of funding MDIs received was a five-fold increase from the level of funding provided in 2022.Finally, the NCUA in October hosted an MDI Symposium that discussed how the agency can better serve these institutions. The MDI Symposium brought together MDI credit unions and industry stakeholders to learn about the challenges faced by MDIs. Sessions included case studies of successful MDI business models for replication. The NCUA plans to leverage this information to further support its MDI Preservation Program. And, as part of the NCUA's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Summit for credit unions in early November, the NCUA held a session that discussed MDI challenges and strategies for success.Advancing Diversity, Equity, and InclusionThe NCUA is fully committed to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the agency and the credit union system.The agency uses data from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, including the Office of Personnel Management's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility index, to inform its data-driven DEI strategies and activities.9 The agency's internal practices to promote DEI are also wide-ranging. For example, the NCUA's employee resource groups serve more than 30 percent of agency staff, surpassing the industry standard membership goal of 10 percent. Further, the NCUA's special emphasis program educates staff on cultural diversity and provides dedicated support for employees and managers with disabilities.In addition, the NCUA routinely recruits employees with diverse backgrounds and seeks to ensure broad applicant pools for vacancies. These diversity recruitment efforts are aimed at attracting and retaining highly qualified individuals from underrepresented groups, including Hispanics and candidates with disabilities. In 2023, the NCUA conducted a targeted barrier analysis to identify hiring and retention challenges for women and Hispanic employees. In addition, the agency has consistently exceeded the federal employment rate goals for employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities since 2017.10 Slightly more than 59 percent of the NCUA's managers are women.The NCUA has additionally built a diverse supplier network to obtain innovative solutions and the best value, particularly in technology and IT solutions. During 2022, the agency awarded $32.8 million of reportable contract dollars to minority and women-owned businesses. That figure represents 45 percent of the agency's contracting dollars, an increase of 8 percentage points from the prior year.Credit unions may also assess their DEI policies and programs through a voluntary credit union diversity self-assessment offered annually.11 Credit union submissions of their self-assessment have no bearing on their CAMELS rating, and examiners cannot access the data. The NCUA reports credit union diversity data only in the aggregate. The agency encourages credit unions to use this tool to support their DEI efforts.In 2022, 481, or 10 percent of all credit unions, submitted a self-assessment. The figure represents an all-time high for submissions to the NCUA. Of those submissions, 302 were federally chartered credit unions, 178 were federally insured and state-chartered, and one was a non-federally insured, state-chartered credit union. The number of CUDSA responses in 2022 is twice as much as the 240 self-assessments submitted in 2021.Finally, to support credit union accomplishments in DEI and provide further guidance, the NCUA hosted its fourth DEI Summit in Washington, D.C., in early November. This now annual event provided a forum for hundreds of credit union stakeholders to network, share best practices, and meet with thought leaders on ways to expand their DEI efforts. The event also highlighted the importance of allyship in helping to achieve the NCUA's and credit unions' DEI goals and improve the financial prospects and futures of families across the country.Rulemaking ActivitiesSince May, the NCUA Board has engaged in several rulemakings on topics like MDI preservation, member expulsion, financial innovation, fair hiring, and charitable donations. These rulemakings have aimed to implement laws required by Congress and strengthen the credit union system.In May, the NCUA Board approved a proposed rule that would add “war veterans' organizations” to the definition of a “qualified charity” that a federal credit union may contribute to using a charitable donation account. The NCUA Board approved the proposed rule noting the attributes of “veterans' organizations” as defined by section 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code are aligned with the purposes of the current charitable donation account rule. A “qualified charity” is a section 501(c)(3) entity defined by the Internal Revenue Code and must be both a non-profit and be organized for a charitable purpose. The final rule will be considered on November 16.In June, the NCUA Board approved proposed changes to the interpretive ruling and policy statement on the agency's Minority Depository Institution Preservation Program. The proposal would amend an existing interpretive ruling and policy statement to update the program's features, clarify the requirements for a credit union to receive and maintain an MDI designation, and reflect the transfer of the MDI Preservation Program administration from the agency's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to its Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion. Proposed amendments to the interpretive ruling and policy statement also include incorporating recent program initiatives, providing examples of technical assistance an MDI may receive, establishing a new standard for MDIs to assess their designation periodically, and updating how the NCUA will review an MDI's designation status, among other changes. This rule is pending.Additionally, the Board finalized a rule in July to implement requirements of the Credit Union Governance Modernization Act of 2022.12 This regulation streamlines procedures for credit unions to expel a member in cases of serious misconduct.In September, the NCUA Board approved a financial innovation final rule that provides flexibility for federally insured credit unions to utilize advanced technologies and opportunities offered by the financial technology sector. The final rule specifically provides credit unions with options to participate in loans acquired through indirect lending arrangements and financial technology. With the adoption of this final rule, the limits previously found in the NCUA's regulations are replaced with policy, due diligence, and risk-management requirements that can be tailored to match each credit union's risk levels and activities.Lastly, the NCUA Board in October approved a proposed rule that would incorporate the NCUA's Second Chance Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement, and statutory prohibitions imposed by Section 205(d) of the Federal Credit Union Act into the agency's regulations. This proposed rule would allow people convicted of certain minor offenses to work in the credit union industry without applying for the NCUA Board's approval. It would also amend requirements governing the conditions under which newly chartered or troubled federally insured credit unions must notify the NCUA of proposed changes to their board of directors, committee members, or senior executive staff. The comment period closes on January 8, 2024.Legislative RequestsWhile the credit union system continues to perform well overall, several amendments to the Federal Credit Union Act would provide the NCUA with greater flexibility to effectively regulate the credit union system and protect the Share Insurance Fund in light of an evolving economic environment, a changing marketplace, and technological advancements.Central Liquidity Facility ReformsAs noted previously, the NCUA Board unanimously supports a statutory change to restore the ability of corporate credit unions to serve as CLF agents on behalf of a subset of their member credit unions. Such legislation would better allow the CLF to serve as a shock absorber for liquidity events within the credit union system.On February 28, 2023, lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation that would allow corporate credit unions to purchase CLF capital stock on behalf of a subset of their members.13 This legislation would permit corporate credit unions to contribute capital to provide coverage for smaller members with less than $250 million in assets. Liquidity risks within the credit union system are rising, and timely consideration of this bill would better protect the credit union system from future liquidity events.Restoration of Third-Party Vendor AuthorityThe risks resulting from the NCUA's lack of vendor authority are real, expanding, and potentially dangerous for the nation's financial infrastructure. Other independent entities, including the Government Accountability Office, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and the NCUA's Office of Inspector General, have identified this deficiency as inhibiting the NCUA from fulfilling its mission to safeguard credit union members and the financial system. And, it is the NCUA Board's continuing policy to seek third-party vendor authority from Congress.14The agency is working within its current authority to address this growing regulatory blind spot, but it is evident that additional authority is needed. There has also been a shift in credit union leaders' understanding of the value of the NCUA having the same vendor authority as the federal banking agencies. The benefits include credit union access to NCUA examination information when conducting due diligence of vendors, fewer requests from the NCUA to credit unions to intervene with vendors experiencing problems, and fewer losses to the Share Insurance Fund.The potential for such resulting losses to the Share Insurance Fund is real. The NCUA's Office of Inspector General stated that between 2008 and 2015, nine CUSOs contributed to material losses to the Share Insurance Fund. The report noted one of the CUSOs caused losses in 24 credit unions, some of which failed. According to NCUA staff calculations, at least 73 credit unions incurred losses between 2007 and 2020 as losses at CUSOs roll onto credit union ledgers and lead to liquidations.15The absence of third-party vendor examination authority limits the NCUA's ability to assess and mitigate potential risks associated with these vendors. Vendors typically decline these requests or refuse to implement recommended actions. This limitation exacerbates any exposure credit unions have to the operational, cybersecurity, and compliance risks that can arise from these relationships. Without the authority to enforce recommended corrective actions, the NCUA is unable to effectively protect credit unions and their members.Furthermore, the growing reliance on third-party services in the credit union industry poses a systemic risk to the credit union system. Five core banking processors, for example, handle more than 90 percent of the credit union system's assets. A failure of one of these critical third parties could cause hundreds of credit unions and potentially tens of millions of their members to lose access to their funds simultaneously. Such a vendor failure, in turn, may result in a loss of confidence in the financial sector. Ensuring proper oversight is imperative, as CUSOs and third-party vendors are poised to capitalize on financial institutions' growing appetite for artificial intelligence and real-time payment services.If granted third-party vendor authority, the NCUA would implement a risk-based examination program focusing on services that relate to safety and soundness, cybersecurity, Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering Act compliance, consumer financial protection, and areas posing significant financial risk for the Share Insurance Fund.Additional Flexibility for Administering the Share Insurance FundThe recent turmoil in the banking sector, growing liquidity risks within the credit union system, and rising interest rate risk all highlight the need for the NCUA to have additional flexibility for administering the Share Insurance Fund.Specifically, the NCUA requests amending the Federal Credit Union Act to remove the 1.50 percent ceiling for the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio from the current statutory definition of “normal operating level,” which limits the ability of the Board to establish a higher normal operating level for the Share Insurance Fund. A statutory change should also remove the limitations on assessing Share Insurance Fund premiums when the equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund is greater than 1.30 percent and if the premium charged exceeds the amount necessary to restore the equity ratio to 1.30 percent.16Together, these amendments would bring the NCUA's statutory authority over the Share Insurance Fund more in line with the FDIC's authority as it relates to administering the Deposit Insurance Fund. These amendments would also better enable the NCUA Board to proactively manage the Share Insurance Fund by building reserves during economic upturns so that sufficient money is available during economic downturns. This more counter-cyclical approach to managing the Share Insurance Fund would better ensure that credit unions will not need to impair their one percent contributed capital deposit or pay premiums during times of economic stress, when they can least afford it.ConclusionThe NCUA stands ready to address the impact of the evolving economic and business cycles within the credit union system. The NCUA will continue to monitor credit union performance and coordinate with other federal financial institution regulators, as appropriate, to ensure the overall resiliency and stability of our nation's financial services system and economy.Thank you again for the invitation to testify about the NCUA's programs and operations. 

Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Please join us for a special cross-over episode of FCRA Focus and The Consumer Finance Podcast, where Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis, Dave Gettings, Kim Phan, and Ron Raether look at the latest developments in the CFPB's FCRA rulemaking process. Topics include:The anticipated timeline for public comment;The removal of medical debt from credit reports; The results of the Small Business Review Panels held in October, and potential reinstatement in the future; The CFPB's "interpretation" of various definitions in the FCRA, such as the meaning of a consumer reporting agency and a consumer report;New obligations imposed on furnishers and end-users regarding permissible purpose;The impact of these new rules on other industries;Anticipation for an uptick in FCRA litigation once the rules are finalized; and Next steps for businesses that will be impacted by the new rules.

On Legal Docket, oral arguments about veteran benefits and whether the US government can be sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; on the Monday Moneybeat, the board behind OpenAI's tumultuous coup and counter coup ; and on the World History Book, 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy is shot. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donate.Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network. Unlocking the power of faith-based financing for your startup. More at ambassadorsimpact.comFrom Samaritan Ministries. It's not insurance, it's a community of Christians paying one another's medical bills. More at samaritanministries.org/worldpodcast.And from WaterStone, helping believers transform non-cash assets—including real estate—into tax-deductible donations to preferred charities. More on how charitable giving can make a bigger impact at WaterStone.org.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Issue(s): Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Civil Procedure: Do the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act waive the sovereign immunity of the United States? - Argued: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 21:7:11 EDT

A case in which the Court will decide whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Culley v. Marshall (October 30) - Due Process; What test should district courts apply to determine whether a state or local government must provide a hearing to someone who has had property seized under a civil asset forfeiture law?Lindke v. Freed (October 31) - Civil Rights, First Amendment; Whether a public official's social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (October 31) - Civil Rights, First Amendment; Are public officials acting as government officials, so that they can violate the First Amendment, when they block people on their personal social media accounts that they use to communicate with the public?Vidal v. Elster (November 1) - First Amendment, Intellectual Property; Does Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which bars the registration of a trademark which uses the name of another living person without that person's permission, violate the Constitution when used to reject a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure?Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (November 6) - Fair Credit Reporting Act, Sovereign Immunity; Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act clearly waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.United States v. Rahimi (November 7) - Second Amendment; Whether a federal ban on the possession of guns by individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment.Rudisill v. McDonough (November 8) - GI Bill; Whether a veteran who has served two separate periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs.Featuring: Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal FoundationProf. Christa Laser, Professor, Cleveland State University of Law Gary Lawkowski, Counsel, Dhillon Law GroupAmy Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage FoundationModerator: Laura Stanley, Judicial Law Clerk, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

On this day in legal history, October 24, the United Nations came into being.On October 24, 1945, a major milestone in international legal history was achieved with the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations. This marked the formal establishment of the United Nations (UN), an organization conceived at that time with the noble aim of promoting global peace, security, and cooperation among nations. This day saw the culmination of efforts that began much earlier, during the turbulent times of World War II, aimed at preventing future generations from the scourge of war.The ratification of the Charter represented a collective global aspiration for a new era of international law and diplomacy. On this day, a majority of signatory nations ratified the Charter, symbolizing their commitment to adhere to the principles of international law, uphold human rights, and promote social progress in their respective territories and globally.The United Nations emerged as the successor to the League of Nations, which had failed to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War. The Charter's ratification was not merely a legal formality but a beacon of hope for a war-ravaged world. It symbolized a global consensus on the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.This day also witnessed the birth of the UN's principal organs, including the General Assembly and the Security Council, which were entrusted with the monumental task of maintaining international peace and security. The Charter's provisions laid the foundation for international law, setting a precedent for multilateral diplomacy and cooperation.October 24, now celebrated as United Nations Day, commemorates the ratification of the Charter and the establishment of the UN, reminding the global community of the enduring values of international cooperation and the pursuit of peace. This day, enshrined in legal history, continues to inspire nations to work together towards a more equitable and peaceful world.On this day, let's reflect on the vision encapsulated in the Charter and the ongoing journey of the United Nations in navigating the complex landscape of international relations and law, striving to fulfill the lofty ideals set forth on that historic day in 1945. Through the lens of legal history, October 24 stands as a testament to the power of international law and the potential of collective action in shaping a better future for humanity.Of course, let us not only reflect on the lofty aspirations the UN was born in to, but the many shortcomings and failings it has seen–endeavoring, in the small part that we can, to plot a course forward that brings us closer to the ideals set forth in 1945. U.S. Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey has entered a plea of not guilty to a recent indictment accusing him of acting as an unregistered foreign agent for the Egyptian government. This indictment follows accusations from federal prosecutors on October 12, stating that Menendez had been involved in actions on behalf of Egyptian military and intelligence officials from 2018 to 2022. The plea was made in front of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein in Manhattan. Previously on October 12, Menendez had commented on the accusations, asserting that adding new charges doesn't make the allegations true.In a prior related case, both Senator Menendez and his wife, Nadine Menendez, were charged with accepting substantial amounts of money and gold bars from three businessmen based in New Jersey. The accusation was that in exchange, Menendez used his influence to aid the Egyptian government and obstruct law enforcement investigations into these businessmen. All defendants, including the Menendez couple, pleaded not guilty to those charges on September 27.On October 18, Nadine Menendez and one of the implicated businessmen, Wael Hana, also pleaded not guilty to the foreign agent charge. The prosecution alleges that Hana facilitated meetings between Senator Menendez and Egyptian officials, who then urged Menendez to approve military aid. As a part of the arrangement, Hana allegedly placed Nadine Menendez on the payroll of a company under his control. The indictment further claims that both Hana and Nadine Menendez transmitted requests and directives from Egyptian officials to Senator Menendez. Despite these serious allegations and charges, Senator Menendez has not heeded calls from fellow Democrats for his resignation.US Senator Menendez pleads not guilty to foreign agent charge | ReutersA federal judge has halted Colorado's attempt to exclude a Christian private school from its taxpayer-funded universal preschool program due to the school's religious-based stance on LGBTQ issues. The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico, who issued a preliminary injunction against the state's move to bar Darren Patterson Christian Academy from the program or penalize it for its religious policies. The school's policies require employees to adhere to its faith and students to use bathrooms and pronouns aligning with their biological sex, which clashed with Colorado's non-discrimination requirements.The conflict arose from the Colorado Department of Early Childhood's non-discrimination prerequisites, which prevent discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity among other statuses. These prerequisites were tied to a new universal preschool program approved by voters in 2020. Despite being initially approved to participate in this program, Darren Patterson Christian Academy sought an exemption from the non-discrimination requirements which was denied by the department, citing state law mandates.Judge Domenico, however, acknowledged the school's credible fear of enforcement of these requirements, especially in hiring teachers, as the school has a policy of hiring only born-again Christians observing sex within the traditional marriage framework. The judge also noted that mandating the use of preferred pronouns could likely infringe on the school's free speech rights.The verdict drew support from the school's representation, the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, emphasizing that religious schools shouldn't be forced to abandon their beliefs. This case reflects a wider contention as other religious organizations, including the Archdiocese of Denver, have raised objections against Colorado's non-discrimination mandates, with similar legal challenges pending.The ruling carries a broader implication, as it references a U.S. Supreme Court decision from June in a related Colorado case, which sided with a wedding website designer refusing services for same-sex weddings based on religious beliefs. The unfolding legal scenario in Colorado could potentially impact the balance between state non-discrimination laws and religious freedom, indicating a continuing legal discourse on these intersecting rights.Colorado can't bar Christian school from preschool program over LGBTQ stance, judge says | ReutersPresident Joe Biden's efforts to diversify the federal judiciary are clearly showcased in the US trial court in Seattle, where he selected all seven active judges in the Western District of Washington. These selections are significant for their diversity as all seven judges are either women, people of color, or both, marking a noticeable shift for a court that previously had no women of color. This court scenario offers a lens into a potential future where courts remain understaffed due to nomination battles, only to be filled when a president of the same party as the home state senators comes to power.These developments are consequential for states with two Republican senators, where judicial vacancies are accumulating. Such a scenario could lead to courts dominated by Republican-appointed judges if a Republican wins the 2024 presidential election. The Western District of Washington court, known for high-profile litigation, experienced a severe staffing shortage exacerbated by departures at the end of the Obama era, which remained unaddressed during Trump's term as he prioritized states with Republican home-state senators.Biden's selections are not only diverse demographically but also professionally, bringing a variety of legal expertise to the bench, a departure from the usual appointments of former prosecutors and corporate lawyers. The judges include individuals with backgrounds in immigration law, tribal court, labor law, and civil rights cases. They also represent some of the youngest federal judges, significantly lowering the average age of judges on the bench.The Western District stands out as the largest court in the country where a single president appointed all active judges, showcasing a potential future trend. Other courts like the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of California have also seen a significant number of appointments under Biden, following staffing shortages during the Trump administration. This trend may continue, especially in red states, as the 2024 election approaches, presenting opportunities for a Republican president to reshape courts in favor of their ideological leanings.Amidst these changes, the influx of new judges brings fresh perspectives to the courts, with senior judges playing a crucial role in mentoring and aiding the transition for new appointees. The camaraderie among new judges and the guidance from senior judges contribute to a supportive environment, aiding the new judges in navigating their roles effectively.All-Biden Court Shows Partisan Shift in How Judges Get ConfirmedRadiology provider Akumin Inc. intends to file for bankruptcy and transition into a private entity, with Stonepeak Partners taking over its operations. This decision comes as part of a deal where Akumin will exchange $470 million of its debt, held by Stonepeak, for equity. Additionally, Stonepeak Partners has committed to injecting $130 million of fresh capital into the business. The agreement also stipulates that current shareholders will share a $25 million cash pool. As of the last report, Akumin, which offers radiology and oncology services to approximately 1,000 healthcare facilities in the US, has a market capitalization of about $13 million and holds over $1.3 billion in debt. This restructuring plan is pending approval from the bankruptcy court.Radiology Provider Akumin to Go Bankrupt, Give Keys to CreditorThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) faces criticism from banks over its recent open banking proposal, which aims to enable the free sharing of customer financial data while enhancing security. Released on October 19, the proposal encourages banks and credit unions to facilitate customers in sharing their financial information with third-party fintech apps via data aggregators. However, traditional financial institutions fear this might not adequately address data security or liability concerns, and they might challenge it in court if they find the rule lacking in these areas.One primary concern of the banks and credit unions is the potential liability they might face if a data aggregator or fintech app suffers a data breach. They are also worried about the misuse of customer data by fintechs, which could infringe on privacy rights. Although the CFPB proposes to extend existing data security laws to fintechs, modify how customer data is shared, and limit the potential uses of such data, financial institutions believe these measures might not be sufficient to allay their concerns.The proposal also aims to phase out "screen scraping," a practice deemed insecure as it requires users to share their banking credentials with third-party services, which increases the risk of data exposure. The CFPB plans to replace this with the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow consumers to control the financial data they share with third parties, intending to eliminate screen scraping within four years.The industry is already transitioning away from screen scraping, with the CFPB estimating that half of the third-party data access now occurs through APIs. This shift reflects a significant change from just two years ago when most data access was via screen scraping.The proposal also addresses targeted advertising by third parties, an area the CFPB has actively pursued, by setting guardrails on the use of shared data. It also states that data aggregators collecting customer data for credit decisions or other financial activities would be considered credit reporting companies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, bringing them under direct CFPB supervision for data security requirements compliance.However, banks and credit unions desire a stronger commitment to federal supervision concerning data security, privacy, and consumer protection. They also express concerns about liability for data breaches and potential customer losses, fearing that the liability standards set by Regulation E of the 1978 Electronic Fund Transfer Act might not adequately cover the complexities of open banking, potentially leaving banks liable if fintech companies lack the means to cover customer losses.Banks Say CFPB Needs to Beef Up Security in Open Banking Plan Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Does your community perform background checks on potential purchasers and potential renters? Do your community residents expect their neighbors to be screened for safety and financial capacity purposes?  Join Donna DiMaggio Berger and guest Robert Sanchez, a seasoned professional from SARMA, as they unravel the complex world of background checks. Donna and Robert dive into the intricacies of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the cost of background checks, the challenges of screening foreign applicants, and the potential penalties if your background check is incomplete or inaccurate.  In this enlightening conversation, Donna and Robert unpack the evolution of background checks and debate the importance of credit scores. They debunk the myths surrounding FICO and Vantage scores and provide practical tips for building good credit. Shifting gears, Donna and Robert focus on the international arena, considering background checks for international applicants and data privacy concerns. They touch on the challenges of running background checks in different jurisdictions, the necessity of parental consent when screening juveniles, and the ever-looming threat to data security. They wrap up by considering the issues that blanket approval policies can pose and discuss about emerging technologies. Robert's valuable insights will surely equip you to better understand and navigate the world of background screening. Tune in as Donna and Robert explore this topic of such importance to so many mandatory community associations!Conversation highlights include:Screening potential renters and potential purchasersUnderstanding and utilizing background reports Understanding credit score ranges Screening costsTransmitting and storing sensitive informationUnderstanding the different entities found on a criminal background

On this day in legal history, September 26, 1789, John Jay was made the first Chief Justice of the United States after the Senate confirmed his nomination.On this day, September 26, we commemorate a cornerstone moment for the American judicial system: the passing of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Signed by President George Washington, this landmark legislation established the Supreme Court of the United States, laying down the legal framework that would ultimately make it the most significant judicial body in the world. The Judiciary Act provided for a Supreme Court comprised of six justices, and on that very day, Washington nominated John Jay as the first Chief Justice, along with John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison, and James Wilson as associate justices. The U.S. Senate wasted no time in confirming all six appointments.While the U.S. Supreme Court was originally established by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 fleshed out the high court's practical structure and functions. It granted the Court ultimate jurisdiction over all laws, especially those challenging their constitutionality. Additionally, the Court was tasked with handling cases involving treaties, foreign diplomats, and maritime law. The first session of the Court took place on February 1, 1790, in New York City's Royal Exchange Building, further cementing its role in American governance.Over the years, the Supreme Court has evolved both in structure and influence. While the number of justices fluctuated during the 19th century, Congress stabilized it at nine justices in 1869—a number that can still be altered by legislative action. Today, the Court stands as a pivotal institution in American society, often playing a decisive role in resolving pressing issues, especially during times of constitutional crisis. Thus, the events of September 26, 1789, mark not just the inception of the Supreme Court, but the beginning of a judicial institution critical to the shaping of American democracy.Stefan Passantino, a former lawyer for the Trump White House, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Weissmann, a former special counsel prosecutor. The lawsuit alleges that Weissmann falsely claimed that Passantino had improperly coached his client, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, to lie in her testimony to the House Jan. 6 committee. Passantino denies having done so, labeling the accusation as an "insidious lie" in the legal complaint. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., and asks for a jury award of an unspecified amount exceeding $75,000.This is not Passantino's first legal action related to the Jan. 6 probe. In April, he filed a similar lawsuit against the House committee, stating that members had also spread false information about him. The issue revolves around Cassidy Hutchinson's claim to the committee that Passantino advised her to say she couldn't recall specific details about an incident involving former President Donald Trump on January 6.After Hutchinson's testimony became public, Passantino's law firm, Michael Best & Friedrich, severed its relationship with him. Additionally, a group called Lawyers Defending Democracy filed a complaint to have Passantino's law license revoked over his counsel to Hutchinson. Passantino alleges that Weissmann's actions were driven by "partisan animus" and resulted in "injurious falsehood" against him. He also claims that a statement from Weissmann, made on September 15, has significantly damaged his professional reputation and caused financial losses. As of the reporting date, Weissmann has not responded to requests for comment.​​Ex-Trump Lawyer Passantino Sues Weissmann, Alleging DefamationIn the world of private equity, a phenomenon called "zombie funds" has emerged, characterized by aging firms unable to raise new capital and struggling to exit old investments. This issue has been highlighted by the case of Fenway Partners, once a booming company, now reduced to a three-man team with a lingering investment in a helmet-making company beset by lawsuits. Industry-wide, there's been a decline in new fundraising, partly due to rising interest rates and partly because pension funds have maxed out their allocations to the illiquid asset class of private equity. As a result, many older funds are finding it increasingly hard to liquidate their existing assets.Public pension funds across the U.S. are particularly stuck with such zombie funds. These include funds managed by First Reserve, an energy-sector specialist, and Yucaipa Cos, a money manager led by supermarket mogul and Democratic donor Ron Burkle. Analysts warn that when private equity firms don't raise new funds, it leads to the gradual loss of staff, leaving only a skeleton crew to manage remaining assets, which in turn deteriorates fund performance. This creates a dilemma for investors, as exiting these problematic funds typically means incurring steep discounts.Pensions and endowments can't easily exit these funds, nor replace the managers unless there is evidence of wrongdoing. Reports from 10 major public retirement systems show that they have a median 4% of their private equity portfolios locked up in funds older than 2009, amounting to around $6.8 billion across more than 900 fund investments. These often-underperforming investments can remain stuck for years, eroding returns and tying up valuable managerial time.The first wave of zombie funds emerged after the 2008 financial crisis. Now, a new wave is taking shape as pension funds are steering less cash into private equity, especially towards smaller, untested firms or those with tarnished histories. The phenomenon represents a stark counterpoint to the promise that private equity can offer reliable, long-term returns. The situation is worsened by slowdowns in the mergers and acquisitions and IPO markets, making asset sales more difficult. Therefore, while some funds may survive in a weakened state, others could face dramatic derailment, leaving investors with limited options and less-than-ideal outcomes.Wave of Zombies Is Rising From Private Equity's Slow Carnage (1)The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is considering a significant overhaul of federal credit reporting rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. The changes could bring additional companies, including data brokers not currently covered, under these rules. Among the proposals is a potential ban on the use of medical debt in consumers' credit reports. The CFPB is also concerned about "credit header data" and may limit when such data can be sold for use by various entities like lenders and law enforcement.The proposed changes would also require major credit reporting companies like Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion to improve their data security measures and overhaul how they handle consumer disputes. They may need to investigate systemic issues based on consumer complaints and notify those affected. Legal disputes are also being revisited; the current bifurcation between legal and factual disputes may be amended to ensure consumer protections.The outline of the proposal was submitted to a small business review panel, and only after their review will a full proposal be developed. The changes are expected to have a far-reaching impact on all businesses involved in consumer data, according to law firms and consumer advocates. Critics argue that some proposals might exceed the CFPB's legal authority, particularly as the agency has faced legal setbacks in federal courts.It's worth noting that the CFPB has focused its outline mainly on the impact of these changes on small businesses, leaving room for potentially even more extensive changes that would mainly affect large credit reporting companies. The formal rule, once issued, is expected to face legal challenges. Both supporters and critics of the proposal agree that the language in the existing credit reporting law might be broad enough to make these significant changes legal, but the agency's recent losses in court cases could create hurdles.CFPB Eyes Broad Expansion of Federal Credit Reporting StandardsThe IRS's new rules, detailed in Notice 2023-63, clarify the definition of software development for tax purposes and require most related expenses to be amortized over time rather than expensed in the current year. This change poses significant challenges for bootstrap software developers—startups that lack typical streams of venture capital and often rely on expensing software development costs immediately. Prior to 2022, Section 174 of the tax code allowed businesses to expense research and development costs in the year they were incurred, which was especially beneficial for startups and small developers.Another issue arising from the new rules is the administrative burden of distinguishing between what constitutes "maintenance activities" and what is considered an "upgrade or enhancement." While maintenance activities are exceptions to the amortization requirement, the definitions are not clear-cut, leading to complications for developers and potential legal disputes.The new tax rules create ambiguity that could discourage innovation by making software acquisition less burdensome than software development from a tax standpoint. Developers have expressed disappointment that recent changes in tax law, specifically the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), did not revert to allowing current-year expensing or provide a narrower definition of "software development."In my colum I suggest that the simplest solution to foster innovation would be to revert to the pre-TCJA current year expensing for software development. Failure to revise these changes could potentially stifle software innovation, especially for startups and smaller companies that were previously incentivized by the ability to expense development costs in the current year.New IRS R&E Rules Risk Stifling Software Innovation for Startups Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Please join Troutman Pepper Partners Kim Phan and Stefanie Jackman for a special podcast episode showcasing our firm's state and federal legislative and regulatory tracking products. These powerful tools were designed to inform industry professionals about the latest state and federal legislative and regulatory developments in order to aid organizations with their compliance management systems and initiatives. The weekly trackers focus on three areas: debt collection, privacy and data security, and consumer reporting and Fair Credit Reporting Act case law. In addition to a weekly tracker, you will be invited to participate in monthly roundtable discussions with Kim and Stefanie. You will also have access to a searchable online portal, which houses all of the information sent out in the weekly updates plus the topics covered in our monthly roundtables. Please tune in to learn more about receiving this valuable tool for your organization.For more information on our firm's state and federal legislative and regulatory tracking products, contact Stefanie Jackman, Kim Phan, or Mike Bevel.

Join us for the third episode in a special three-part series covering the CFPB's intention to propose new rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis, Dave Gettings, Kim Phan, Ethan Ostroff, and Ron Raether discuss the potential implications of regulating data brokers under the FCRA, and how this might affect data brokers as well as other types of entities, including users, consumer reporting agencies, and resellers.

Join us for the second episode in a special three-part series covering the CFPB's intention to propose new rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis, Dave Gettings, Kim Phan, Ron Raether, and Ethan Ostroff discuss the regulation of credit header data and the potential impact on the FCRA and consumer reporting agencies, as well as users and data brokers.Stay tuned for the third and final episode in this series, which will focus specifically on data brokers and the possibility of regulating them under the FCRA, and how this might affect data brokers as well as other types of entities, users, consumer reporting agencies, and resellers.

We first review the Fair Credit Reporting Act provisions that establish the different requirements for how a creditor or other furnisher of information to a credit bureau must respond to direct and indirect identify theft disputes involving credit report information reported by the furnisher to a credit bureau. A direct dispute is one made directly by the consumer to the furnisher and an indirect dispute is one made by the consumer to the credit bureau and then submitted to the furnisher by the credit bureau. In particular, we focus on the information that a furnisher may require from a consumer before investigating each type of dispute. We then look at the factors courts have considered in decisions involving whether, in connection with an indirect identity theft dispute, a furnisher satisfied the FCRA requirement to conduct a reasonable investigation. We conclude with a discussion of best practices for furnishers to consider when handling investigations of  indirect identity theft disputes. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation joined by Melanie Vartabedian and Joel Tasca, partners in the Group.

Join us for the first episode in a special three-part series covering the CFPB's intention to propose new rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis, Dave Gettings, Ethan Ostroff, and Kim Phan explore the historical events that led us to this point, the next steps in the rulemaking process, the expected timeline for a final rule, how the CFPB is coordinating with the FTC and other regulators, and the expected proposed rulemaking regarding credit header data and data brokers.Stay tuned for the next two episodes in this series. In our second episode, our panel will discuss the regulation of credit header data and the potential impact on the FCRA and consumer reporting agencies, as well as users and data brokers. And the final episode of our series will focus specifically on data brokers and the possibility of regulating data brokers under the FCRA, the effect it can have on data brokers as well as other types of entities, users, consumer reporting agencies, and resellers.

In this episode of Wallet Watch, Brian interviews Eddie Johansson a credit guru and expert witness in credit reporting cases. If you have ever been confused of frustrated about your credit then this episode is for you. Brian and Eddie unpack how your credit actually gets created, reported and even how to properly dispute and repair your credit. He'll also demystify the FICCO versus Vantage scores so you know exactly what you are looking at and why. If you are looking to buy anything with credit (especially real estate) then this episode is for you.Guest BioEddie Johansson is the founding president of Credit Security Group. He trains and manages CSG's staff of credit analysts and researchers and has personally analyzed over 40,000 consumer credit reports. He has educated lenders and consumers on the facts of the credit system, helping lenders understand true credit risk and helping consumers and investors properly manage credit to reach their financial goals.Johansson has been qualified by federal court as an expert witness in Fair Credit Reporting Act cases and is a frequent guest speaker at financial association conventions including the Texas Bankers Association, The Association of Independent Real Estate Owners and the Independent Bankers Association of Texas. In 2007, he authored the FICO© Professional Educational Series for Mortgage Professionals. This is a progressive three-part presentation and seminar detailing the real world of credit scores based on the findings of CSG's Research Department. Since its development, CSG analysts have presented the series to thousands of professionals at major banks, real estate and mortgage firms and trade associations.Wallet Watch is a deep dive in to how to build wealth through real estate and entrepreneurship. The host, Brian McCauley, is a successful North Texas Loan Officer that focuses on interviewing industry leaders on practical ways to attain financial freedom and build more successful businesses. Watch and listen if you're interested in taking your finances to the next level. How to get connected with Brian: Brian's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dallasmortgageman/Wallet Watch Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walletwatchpodcast/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/brianmccauleyloansSchedule a call with Brian: https://dallasmortgagenews.com

Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his colleagues Mark Furletti, Joe Reilly, and Christine Emello for the last installment of a special three-part series about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) new small business lending data collection and reporting final rule — the Section 1071 rule. Part 3 focuses on specific areas, including highlighting those we worry will be especially troublesome for small business lenders.CFS Partner Mark Furletti focuses his practice on federal and state consumer and small business lending and payments laws, including those that apply to payment cards, buy-now-pay-later transactions, vehicle-secured loans, lines of credit, unsecured loans, and deposit products. He counsels consumer and small business financial services providers, including banks, on regulatory compliance, and defends them in class-action litigation and government supervisory and enforcement matters. He also advises merchant receivables purchasers, companies that specialize in online small business lending, and companies that interact with their customers electronically or set up recurring billing arrangements with their customers.CFS Partner Joe Reilly regularly represents lenders, fintech startups, neobanks, and mortgage servicers in enforcement matters, including informal investigations and examinations by the CFPB, OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, SEC, numerous state agencies, and mortgage government-sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie Mae. His compliance counseling work covers the entire range of consumer and business lending laws and rules under TILA/Reg. Z, ECOA/Reg. B, UDAAP, EFTA/Reg. E, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, debt-collection laws, GLBA privacy provisions, state licensing regimes, and others.CFS Associate Christine Emello focuses her practice on consumer financial services matters, with an emphasis on disputes, litigation, investigations, and examinations. She has worked on both federal and state court cases in jurisdictions across the U.S. She also represents banks, fintechs, and financial services companies in regulatory examinations and investigations brought by state and federal regulators, including the CFPB, the DOJ, and state attorneys general.

Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his colleagues Lori Sommerfield, Addison Morgan, and Josh McBeain for the first installment of a special three-part series about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) new small business lending data collection and reporting final rule — the Section 1071 rule. Part 1 of this special series provides a general overview of the rule, including:What the rule is designed to do;The definition of a small business for the purpose of this rule;What types of small business lenders are covered;Covered and excluded credit transactions as defined by the rule;The three types of data required to be collected;Anti-discouragement provisions of the rule;Data collection and reporting requirements and what the CFPB intends to do with the collected data;Safe harbor provisions within the rule; andThe differences between the proposed rule and the final rule.Stay tuned for Part 2 of this special series that takes a deeper dive into the rule's data collection requirements and anti-discouragement provisions.CFS Partner Lori Sommerfield brings more than two decades of experience in representing a wide range of banks, financial institutions, and financial services companies in fair lending and responsible banking regulatory compliance. She has extensive experience in helping clients navigate fair lending examinations and supervisory issues, and she has successfully represented clients in high-stakes fair lending regulatory investigations and enforcement actions. Prior to joining the firm, Lori held significant legal positions in federal government, in-house, and private practice settings (including two other nationally known law firms), which she leverages to effectively represent her clients' interests.CFS Associate Addison Morgan represents several of the nation's preeminent financial institutions in litigation arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Federal Trade Commission Holder Rule, and other consumer protection state analogs. In addition to his litigation practice, Addison also provides regulatory compliance assistance to a wide array of companies across the financial services industry.CFS Associate Josh McBeain focuses his practice on federal and state consumer and business lending and payments laws, including those applying to credit cards, installment loans, lines of credit, point-of-sale finance, and the development of digital financial service products. Before joining the firm, Josh served as in-house counsel to a major financial institution where he advised on an array of regulatory, legal, and compliance issues. He also worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis for several years, where he examined banks for compliance with consumer and business laws.

Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his fellow Partner Julie Hoffmeister as they discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) recent request for information about data brokers and the potential interplay with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). During this episode, they expand on the CFPB's potential FCRA rulemaking regarding data brokers, the CFPB's intent to monitor data brokers and its desire to have greater oversight on the data broker industry, and the steps that the CFPB may take in response to the request for information.As part of the firm's Privacy + Cyber Practice Group, Julie focuses her practice on defending consumer-facing companies of all types in individual and class actions, including claims under the FCRA and other federal and state law-related privacy claims.

In this episode, we discuss why employers use background checks in the hiring process, why types of background checks can be done, employer requirements and more. Subscribe to our podcast today to stay up to date on employment issues from law experts worldwide. Read Evan's article here. Host: Susan Deniker (email) (Steptoe & Johnson PLLC / West Virginia)Guest Speaker: Evan Way (email) (Crowe & Dunlevy / Oklahoma)Register on the ELA website here to receive email invitations to future programs.

Larry P. Smith is a consumer attorney, concentrating his practice in the areas of Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collections Practices violations as well as consumer fraud claims and lemon law. He is the Managing Partner at SmithMarco, P.C. https://protectingconsumerrights.com/  

The Fair Credit Reporting Act gives you the right to dispute any information on your credit reports that's reporting inaccurate information. Consider becoming a listener supporter of my podcast. clink on this link and sign up. https://anchor.fm/angelo-mccutchen/support https://www.getfreshstart.net - My credit repair coaching program You can support my channel with any size donation Cashapp-$Credit1964 My Email- Creditrepair64@gmail.com Follow me Youtube Business Credit Page- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwrs5V6-Thfh5ueizrS3HnA TikTok= @creditdoctor64 https://www.facebook.com/groups/creditrepair64 (Credit Repair Group) https://www.facebook.com/groups/346620583925632 ( Business Credit and Finance) https://www.instagram.com/creditrepair64 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/angelo-mccutchen/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/angelo-mccutchen/support

#blackfinanceawareness #creditbuilding #creditscores #fcra #blackcreditmatters #creditkarma #hesaidwhatnetwork #800creditscore #financialchallenge⁠ ⁠ How does the FCRA protect consumers? In order to protect consumers from misinformation, the law was passed. In it, they outline how they collect and verify information, as well as why they can release it.⁠ ⁠ Tune in on Tuesdays 6 PM ET to “The Credit Podcast,” hosted by Your Favorite Credit Hero Rony Francois streaming live on YouTube at He Said What Network.⁠ ⁠ This show is designed to help bring financial and credit awareness into the Black Community. We have failed due to a lack of resources, knowledge, and the will to make a change. Join Rony and be the change you want for our current and upcoming generations. ⁠ ⁠ Need a reminder? Sign up at www.HeSaidWhatNetwork.com and receive notifications on your selected shows before they go live - never miss another episode! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hesaidwhatnetwork/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/hesaidwhatnetwork/support

Sign up for our brand new 14-day Credit Hero Challenge.Hey Credit Heroes!In today's episode, I'm gonna be presenting to you a credit repair bombshell that has just been dropped by Congress! If you haven't heard, the chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Challenge has called on the CFPB to investigate Experian, Equifax and TransUnion!Why? For allegedly failing to address consumer disputes, as well as discarding disputes without investigation and potentially violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.In today's episode, I'm going to be going through the allegations that have been made, and what it means for our industry. Make sure to check it out!Key Takeaways:Intro (00:00)What's going on right now (02:38)What the subcommittee found (06:02)My takeaway from the findings (15:35)Our credit repair cloud Facebook spotlight (17:11)Episode wrap-up (20:08)Additional Resources:- Get a free trial to Credit Repair Cloud- Get my free credit repair training  Make sure to subscribe so you stay up to date with our latest episodes

Personal ProfileAttorney Derek DePetrillo graduated from Massachusetts School of Law in 2007 and was admitted to practice law in the State of Massachusetts in 2007. Mr. DePetrillo is also licensed in many Federal jurisdictions across the United States.Mr. DePetrillo has been assisting consumers in consumer protection since 2010. Mr. DePetrillo's main area of practice is under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Mr. DePetrillo has filed countless lawsuits and arbitration claims against debt collectors and banks. Mr. DePetrillo fights for the little people who have had their rights violated and need a helping hand to guide them through the stressful times of debt collection.North Andover, MassachusettsEducationMassachusetts School of Law, JD. 2007Salem State College, B.S. 1999Bar & Court Admissions:Admitted in The Commonwealth of MassachusettsAdmitted in all Federal Districts of MassachusettsAdmitted in all Federal Districts of ColoradoAdmitted in the Federal District of Eastern TexasAdmitted in all Federal Districts of ArkansasAdmitted in Federal District of NebraskaAdmitted in Federal District of North DakotaAdmitted in all Federal Districts of WisconsinAdmitted in Southern Federal District of IndianaProfessional Associations & Memberships:Essex County Bar Association(978) 212-3300attorneyderekd@consumerlawfirmcenter.comAbout Jennifer PesickaMy primary goal is to be a one stop shop for planners looking to place a program in San Diego. With three fabulous hotels (Hilton San Diego Bayfront, Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines, and Doubletree by Hilton San Diego Mission Valley), I am able to offer something for most every groups budget. My territory includes primarily the Midwest and West Coast Association market. I have been in the hospitality industry for over 20 years and representing San Diego for the last 13 years. While I currently work remotely from Los Angeles, I had the pleasure of living in San Diego for 3 years and can't think of a better destination to hold a conference. Whether planners need assistance in finding a hotel, a venue, or information on the destination, I am available, knowledgable and ready to assist!Specialties: Destination Sales & Marketing, Meetings/Convention Market Sales, Incentive Market Sales, Meeting Planning, San Diego, Destination Selling, Hotel sales, Client Appreciation Events, San Diego destination knowledge, Networking, Business Development, Sales, Incentive Travel, Tradeshows, Conference planning, Prospecting, Meeting planning expertise ***Please note all opinions expressed on The Three Guys Podcast do not represent any Group, Company or Organization***Episode Produced by The Three Guys ProductionsThe Three Guys Podcast:Instagram:  The Three Guys Podcast (@the_three_guys_podcast_) • Instagram photos and videosTwitter:  The Three Guys Podcast (@TheThreeGuysPo1) / TwitterYouTube:   Three Guys Podcast - YouTubeLinkedIn the-three-guys-podcastDerek:  Derek DePetrillo (@derekd0518) • Instagram photos and videosBrian:  Brian Nazarian (@the_real_brian_nazarian) • Instagram photos and videosBrett:  Brett J. DePetrillo (@78brettzky)

In Bibbs, the Third Circuit ruled that in determining whether a credit report is inaccurate or misleading under the FCRA's “maximum possible accuracy” requirement, a district court should apply a “reasonable reader” standard. After reviewing the background of Bibbs, we discuss the analysis that Bibbs' requires a district court to perform in determining whether a credit report is inaccurate or misleading, how Bibbs broadly undercuts the claims of plaintiff's lawyers in FCRA cases alleging pay status information is misleading, Bibbs' implications for data furnishers that follow Metro 2 guidelines or other industry standards, and Bibbs' impact on defendants' litigation strategy and the threat of plaintiffs' attorney fees. Dan McKenna, Co-Chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Abigail Pressler, Of Counsel in the Group.

Welcome back to Frown Town! This week, Vee and J talk about credit score reporting. Special thank you to FCON for loaning us their song Liquid Fury! - https://fcon206.bandcamp.com/album/fcon Relevant Links: The History of Consumer Credit in One Giant Infographic - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/history-consumer-credit-one-infographic/ When Did Credit Scores Start? - https://www.credit.com/blog/when-did-credit-scores-start-152354/ The History Of Credit - https://www.rockethq.com/learn/credit/the-history-of-credit Understanding the Fair Credit Reporting Act - https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/credit-education/report-basics/fair-credit-reporting-act-fcra/ In boon for consumers, 3rd Circuit clarifies ascertainability, post-TransUnion standing - https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/boon-consumers-3rd-circuit-clarifies-ascertainability-post-transunion-standing-2022-08-26/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

We discuss how lead generation works, the roles of the various players in the lead generation marketplace, the key regulatory risks arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and Telemarketing Sales Rule, FTC enforcement cases, and CFPB supervisory concerns. We also discuss the impact of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act's referral fee prohibition and fair lending/fair housing laws on lead generation involving mortgage-related services and state licensing issues triggered by lead generation. Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel, hosts the conversation joined by Matthew Morr, Richard Andreano, and John Socknat, partners in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group.