In an opinion that could have serious adverse effects for social media influencers, the Ninth Circuit recently reinstated litigation against influencer and real estate syndicator Grant Cardone and his company, Cardone Capital, LLC, holding that Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 does not require that a solicitation be directed or targeted to a particular plaintiff.
Posts published by “Brady Hermann”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a motion to dismiss FDCPA and Mass. Gen. Law. Ch. 93 and 93A claims, holding that a constable qualifies as a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and a “creditor” under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93.
Another auto lender recently agreed to pay millions of dollars to resolve allegations made by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General that it failed to provide compliant deficiency notices following the repossession of automobiles from consumers within the Commonwealth.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and federal and state courts in Massachusetts decided several important cases for the consumer financial services industry in 2021. Two related cases concerned the constitutionality of a Massachusetts regulation limiting telephone contact with debtors and a third ruling came from the First Circuit on a federal TCPA action.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed an $11 million arbitration award entered by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel in favor of a financial advisor and against his former employer. In doing so, the Court held that the “public policy” exception of the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act is limited to arbitration awards arising from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed an order compelling arbitration, even though the arbitration clause contained a class action waiver and an anti-joinder provision, and dismissing a putative class action brought against the operator of a smartphone app offering financial services to its customers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that the plain language of 15 U.S.C. 1692f(8), a provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) regulating what may be shown on an envelope when a debt collector communicates with a consumer by mail, does not include a “benign language” exception.
The Massachusetts Superior Court, Business Litigation Session, recently denied a broker-dealer’s motion to vacate a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration award requiring it to pay attorneys’ fees to its former employees, holding that the parties’ mutual request for attorneys’ fees in an arbitration can provide the requisite legal basis for an award of attorneys’ fees.
The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a broker’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) seeking to stop a scheduled remote arbitration hearing.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently affirmed a lower court’s denial of a debt collector’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the defendant had failed to provide “clear and definite” evidence of the parties’ intent that it benefit from the arbitration provision at issue.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently held that Massachusetts debt collection regulations, which limit how often a creditor may attempt to contact a debtor via telephone in order to collect a debt, apply to creditors that use automatic dialing devices or voluntarily decide not to leave voicemail messages. A copy of the decision in Armata v. Target Corporation is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff initiated a matter in Superior Court, alleging the defendant violated 940 Code Mass. Regs. § 7.04(1)(f), which provides that “[it] shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a creditor to contact…
In an important decision for the debt buying industry, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that passive debt buyers are not “debt collectors” under the Massachusetts Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (MDCPA). A copy of the decision in Dorrian v. LVNV Funding, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. An amicus brief filed by Receivables Management Association International and written by Maurice Wutscher attorneys in support of the appellant is available at: Link to Amicus Brief. In Massachusetts, “debt collectors” must obtain a license from the Division of Banks, the state agency tasked with regulating debt collection in the Commonwealth. Under the MDCPA,…