Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits the use of any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by mail. The purpose of that prohibition is to protect the debtor’s privacy and avoid disclosing to anyone who might see the envelope
Rising Conflict Among Federal Courts – Whether an Account Number Visible on a Debt Collection Envelope Violates the FDCPA
Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits the use of any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by mail. The purpose of that prohibition is to protect the debtor’s privacy and avoid disclosing to anyone who might see the envelope
Rising Conflict Among Federal Courts – Whether an Account Number Visible on a Debt Collection Envelope Violates the FDCPA
Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits the use of any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by mail. The purpose of that prohibition is to protect the debtor’s privacy and avoid disclosing to anyone who might see the envelope
Rising Conflict Among Federal Courts – Whether an Account Number Visible on a Debt Collection Envelope Violates the FDCPA
Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits the use of any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by mail. The purpose of that prohibition is to protect the debtor’s privacy and avoid disclosing to anyone who might see the envelope
Rising Conflict Among Federal Courts – Whether an Account Number Visible on a Debt Collection Envelope Violates the FDCPA
Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits the use of any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by mail. The purpose of that prohibition is to protect the debtor’s privacy and avoid disclosing to anyone who might see the envelope
Rising Conflict Among Federal Courts – Whether an Account Number Visible on a Debt Collection Envelope Violates the FDCPA
Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits the use of any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by mail. The purpose of that prohibition is to protect the debtor’s privacy and avoid disclosing to anyone who might see the envelope
Rising Conflict Among Federal Courts – Whether an Account Number Visible on a Debt Collection Envelope Violates the FDCPA
Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits the use of any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by mail. The purpose of that prohibition is to protect the debtor’s privacy and avoid disclosing to anyone who might see the envelope
Possible Life Sentence in Salmonella Case Raises Stakes for Food and Beverage Industry Compliance
Last week, federal prosecutors in Georgia filed papers supporting the local probation office’s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines calculation calling for a sentence of life in prison for Stewart Parnell, the one-time CEO of Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), for his role in a salmonella outbreak. The case is a cautionary reminder for the food and beverage
SEC’s Whistleblower Program Awards Over $3 million to Company Insider
On Friday, July 17, t
he Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it will award more than $3 million to a company insider who helped the SEC “crack a complex fraud.”
The SEC’s whistleblower program was adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. It rewards high-quality, original information that results in enforcement actions exceeding
Defining a Legitimate Scope for the Federalization of Business Crime
The Washington Times published an article titled “Defining a Legitimate Scope for the Federalization of Business Crime” by Washington partner George Terwilliger, assisted by Richmond associate Katherine Mims Crocker, about the proper role of federal policing and prosecutorial authority, and how it exceeds the limited role the U.S. Constitution prescribes for it.