Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published by “Brady Hermann”

Brady Hermann is senior counsel in the Boston and New York offices of Maurice Wutscher LLP. He regularly represents financial services companies including banks, broker-dealers, financial advisors, financial asset buyers and third party debt collectors in individual, class action and regulatory matters. He has successfully represented clients throughout the country against claims for violations of securities laws, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and various state consumer protection statutes. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/brady-hermann/

Federal Court Holds a Constable Qualifies as a ‘Debt Collector’ Under FDCPA and a ‘Creditor’ Under Massachusetts Law

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.

Auto Lender Agrees to Pay $5.5 Million in Massachusetts to Resolve Allegations It Failed to Provide Compliant Deficiency Notices

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.

This Year the 1st Circuit and Mass. Courts Tackled Consumer Contacts

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.

Illinois App. Court Affirms $11 Million FINRA Award, Holds ‘Public Policy’ Exception of Arbitration Act is Limited to Awards Arising From a CBA

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).

9th Cir. Holds Anti-Joinder and Class Action Waiver Provisions Did Not Violate California Law

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.

6th Circuit Rejects ‘Benign Language’ Exception in FDCPA Envelope Disclosure Claim

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.

Mass. Superior Court Affirms Mutual Request for Attorneys’ Fees in Arbitration Can Provide Requisite Legal Basis for Award of Fees

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.

Mass. SJC: Debt Collector Can’t Use Arbitration Provision to Thwart Class Action

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.

Mass. SJC Holds Mass. Debt Collection Regs Apply to Creditors that Auto Dial or Don’t Leave Messages

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…

Mass. SJC Holds Passive Debt Buyers Are Not ‘Debt Collectors’ Under State Law

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,…

Mass. SJC Holds Omission of Post-Foreclosure Notice Did Not Void Foreclosure

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) recently affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a mortgagee’s failure to send a post-foreclosure notice required by Mass. Gen. Laws c. 244, § 15A does not render a foreclosure void. A copy of the opinion in Turra v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas is available at:  Link to Opinion. A mortgagee notified a borrower that he was in default under the terms of his mortgage.  The mortgagee subsequently foreclosed on the property and commenced a summary process action.  The borrower then filed suit against the mortgagee, and the mortgagee moved to dismiss the borrower’s…