Our financial services team manages clients’ challenges in an ever-changing business environment. Knowing which issues to negotiate or litigate and which to resolve at an early stage is crucial. We help clients evaluate strategy, tactics, and possible outcomes.

We have extensive experience representing a broad variety of clients with diverse needs. Our lawyers frequently counsel financial institutions – including many regional and community lenders – and borrowers regarding commercial lending transactions, foreclosures, restructuring, bankruptcies, receiverships, and regulatory matters. We also add value through the skills, knowledge, and work ethic gained from our decades of representation in the financial sector.

Our creditors’ remedies and bankruptcy team has earned a national reputation for creative, practical, and cost-effective solutions for financial institutions and companies affected by the labyrinth of federal and state laws governing interactions with consumers. Licensed and admitted to practice in numerous states and U.S. district courts, our lawyers appear throughout the country.

Our areas of counsel include:

  • Financial transactions
  • Class action defense
  • Consumer financial litigation defense
  • Compliance
  • Bankruptcy

Reported Decisions

Reported Decisions

We are involved in numerous cases that shape and define this area of law, including the following representative matters:

  • Roark v. Credit One Bank 2018 WL 5921652 (D. Minn., 2018)
  • Remington v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2017 WL 1014994 (D. CT)
  • Bradford v. LVNV Funding, 3 F. Supp. 3d 708 (6th Cir. 2015)
  • Donaldson v. LVNV Funding, 2015 WL 1539607 (S.D. Ind. 2015)
  • Bradford v. LVNV, Docket 2:11-CV-291 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 25, 2014)
  • White v. Sherman, 2013 WL 5936679 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 4, 2013)
  • Robinson v. Sherman, 2013 WL 3968446 (E.D. Tenn., July 31, 2013)
  • Ferris & Salter v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, 2012 WL 3815624 (D. Minn.)
  • Dumoulin v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 11-149 (Idaho Supreme Court)
  • Zigdon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2010 WL 1838637 (N.D. Ohio 2010) and 2010 WL 2332692 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
  • Brill v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 5825480 (D. Neb. 2010)
  • Lougee v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 2077178 (D. Colo. 2010)
  • Mack Financial Services v. Tim Flanigan Trucking, Inc., 2010 WL 234729 (D. Minn. 2010)
  • Jiminez v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 2010 WL 5829206 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
  • Waite v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 5209350 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
  • Vinton v. Certegy Check Services, 1:08-cv-881 (W.D. Mich. 2009)
  • Hollis v. Northland Group, Inc., 2009 WL 250075 (D. Minn. 2009)
  • Grim v. West Publishing Corp., 08-1264 (Berks County, PA 2008)
  • Hernandez v. Palisades, 3:06-CV-1382 (D. Conn. 2008)
  • Cerjaweski v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2008 WL 3091318 (N.D. Ind. 2008)
  • Stampley v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 583 F. Supp. 2d 960 (N.D. Ohio 2008)
  • Sivak v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 3:06-CV-01400 (D. Conn. 2007)
  • Posso v. Asta Funding, Inc., 07-C-4024 (N.D. Ill. 2007)
  • Galbraith v. Resurgent Capital Services, 2006 WL 2990163 (E.D. Cal. 2006)
  • Jackson v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 1:05-cv-023 (D. N.D. 2006) 
  • Perera v. Blue Ribbon et. al., CV-04-1668 (D. Oregon 2005) 
  • Malm v. Household Bank, 2004 WL 1559370 (D. Minn. 2004)
  • Richardson v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, 2004 WL 867732 (S.D. N.Y. 2004) 
  • Wiegand v. JNR Adjustment Co., 2002 WL 724456 (D. Minn. 2002)
  • Alexander v. Omega Management, 67 F. Supp. 2d. 1052 (D. Minn. 1999)

Attorneys

Professionals

News & Insights

News

Events

Publications

Multimedia

Social Media

Moss & Barnett, John Rossman, and Mike Poncin are pleased to present the audio blog series, The Debt Collection Drill. John and Mike provide sage tips and ongoing intelligence for debt professionals. In the blog archive, you can review detailed tactics on emerging issues in the credit industry and their analysis and solutions to the challenges the collection industry faces daily. John and Mike invite your readership and comments.

The Debt Collection Drill

Moss & Barnett is pleased to announce the first of its monthly podcast series titled "The Debt Collection Drill" featuring shareholders John Rossman and Michael Poncin providing sage tips for improving collections and compliance.
  • The CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules envision a much-needed update and modernization to many provisions in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  However, the CFPB’s proposed rules include a limit of the number of debt collection calls that may be made per week without regard to the REJECTION of call frequency limits by Congress.  Because our Congress considered and dismissed call frequency limits for debt collectors, the CFPB cannot implement such limits through rulemaking. In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, attorneys Mike Poncin and John Rossman re-enact (from official Congressional transcripts) portions of the April 4, 1977 debates in the United States House of Representatives regarding the FDCPA and specifically a then-proposed weekly limit on debt collection calls.  Members of Congress raised specific and detailed objections on the record about the Constitutionality of the call frequency limit proposal at that time and also concerns about false claims. 
  • Debt collectors defending against hyper-technical FDCPA lawsuits by consumer attorneys commonly ask the same question: “How could the consumer possibly have been harmed by this supposed violation of the FDCPA?”  The question is especially poignant when the purported FDCPA violation arises from a collection letter the consumer never read or from the language in the collection letter upon which the consumer never intended to rely.  Does the concept of “no harm, no foul” apply to the FDCPA? In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Casillas matter dismissing an alleged hyper-technical FDCPA letter violation.  They also discuss the recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal regarding interest and share thoughts on the CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules.
  • As most debt collectors know, sending any collection notice into Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania (the States with Federal Courts in the Third Circuit) will likely result in an FDCPA class action lawsuit against the debt collector.  Typically these lawsuits assert that the validation language used in the collection letter does not require the consumer to communicate disputes in writing only allegedly in violation of the FDCPA.  While several appeals on this issue are pending and consolidated before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a decision from the Third Circuit in 2017 may provide guidance on how it will rule in favor of the debt collectors.   In the most recent episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin are joined by their colleague, attorney Aylix Jensen, to discuss the Third Circuit validation issues, including the Jewsevskyj case, compliance with the new California privacy law (the CCPA) and credit reporting accounts in bankruptcy (see recent article on this issue http://www.insidearm.com/news/00044941-credit-reporting-debts-bankruptcy-deluge-/)
  • Debt collectors face an historic onslaught of FDCPA cases in Pennsylvania (and to a lesser extent New Jersey), all of which allege that statutory language in collection letters which tracks the FDCPA somehow violates the law.  The Courts in these cases take the position that a consumer must be apprised that a dispute must be in writing to be effective, even though this position is contrary to the plain language of the FDCPA and rulings by the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal.  This issue has been addressed extensively in InsideARM:  http://www.insidearm.com/news/00044725-22m-settlement-proposed-fcra-case-pulling/ http://www.insidearm.com/news/00044669-open-letter-cfpb-1692g-issues-within-thir/ In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin directly address whether debt collectors should change notices sent into Pennsylvania and also discuss the impact of the settlement in the Crunch v. Marks decision along with the recent California out-of-statute disclosure.
  • Collectors frequently point to contradictory language among the FDCPA and other statutes as proof that standardized debt collection rules are needed in this industry.  However, even in an industry where consumer attorneys frequently make "creative" arguments, it is rare to see a claim that the FDCPA itself contains contradictory language. In a number of recent cases, consumer attorneys are arguing that the validation language from the statute – the same language collectors have been using since the FDCPA was enacted in 1977 -- is now somehow unclear and confusing.   Specifically, consumer attorneys argue that the first sentence of the validation notice (relating to disputes), which does not contain an "in writing" requirement, contradicts the second sentence of the notice, which does require a written request from the consumer to receive verification.  Unfortunately, two Courts in New Jersey within the past year sided with the consumers in denying debt collectors' motions to dismiss on this issue.  Two more cases on the issue – on which the debt collectors prevailed – are pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin examine the recent cases alleging that the standard validation language violates the FDCPA and provide guidance for debt collectors seeking to avoid liability on this issue. 
  • Debt collectors were given clarity regarding two thorny FDCPA issues recently by decisions issued from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  In the case of Portalatin v. Blatt, the Court held that a consumer was entitled to a single recovery of an FDCPA statutory penalty rather than multiple recoveries for the same alleged violation from each Defendant.  This issue of Plaintiffs seeking to “stack” recoveries for the same alleged violations from multiple Defendant is now finally resolved in favor of the debt industry.  The Seventh Circuit also held in Dunbar v. Kohn that that sentence “This settlement may have tax consequences.” did not violate the FDCPA, thus joining the numerous other Court that held this language complies with the law.  In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the Portalatin and Dunbar decisions in addition to strategies for debt collectors to avoid FDCPA on debt collection communications regarding interest and out-of-statute disclosures.  Links to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rulings in Portalatin and Dunbar can be found below. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-13/C:16-1578:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2201521:S:0 http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-19/C:17-2134:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2189247:S:0

Learn More About Our Financial Services Practice

Compliance and litigation defense are complementary components for the financial services industry. Moss & Barnett works closely with clients to create and update compliance programs. We seek to avoid litigation through compliance and provide national guidance on key issues such as statutes of limitation, licensing, and consumer disclosures. Companies seeking legal advice on any issue know that we have typically already researched the issue in other contexts and can leverage that base of knowledge to provide cost-effective answers. Our clients include national banks, automobile lenders, information companies, and fintech companies – including marketplace lenders and companies offering income share agreements – in addition to collection agencies and debt buyers.

We foster and enjoy robust relationships with numerous state and federal regulators. Lawyers in our office meet frequently with federal regulators in Washington, D.C. and communicate with state collection agency regulators, who frequently seek our informal input on issues. Moss & Barnett clients benefit from our relationships with the regulators who enforce laws that are often open to broad and varying interpretations.

Additionally, we provide successful litigation defense and compliance counseling in connection with individual and complex class action lawsuits under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and similar state statutes.

We have substantial experience representing secured and unsecured creditors and other interested parties in proceedings under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Our counsel includes:

  • Preference, fraudulent transfer, and non-dischargeability actions
  • Claim allowance disputes
  • Collateral recovery
  • Automatic stay and discharge injunction litigation
  • Contested matters and adversary proceedings

Moss & Barnett is often consulted when a company is facing “lost cause” litigation and contemplating paying enormous sums of money to settle a case. While our published court victories are well-known, our work behind the scenes to quietly – and often reasonably – resolve cases provides the greatest value to our clients.

Lawyers on our team are admitted to practice in some or all of the federal district courts located in the following states:

  • Arkansas
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • New York
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • Pennsylvania
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Wisconsin
Close