Largest Debt Collection Company Hit with $3.2 Million Fine by FTC

As reported in the media Tuesday, July 8, 2013, Expert Global Solutions was fined by the Federal Trade Commission a total of 3.2 Million Dollars for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Expert Global Solutions is the largest US Consumer Debt Collection company based in Plano, TX

The fine resulted from what the FTC called gross violations, including calling consumers multiple times each day, even when consumers asked them to stop.  They were also cited for having called consumers at their place of work, even when the consumer's employer prohibited such calls.  They also left messages about the debt with third parties, which is expressly prohibited.

Under the agreement Expert Global Solutions must not harass or abuse a person while trying to collect a debt, not contact third parties about a person's debt, not call a person's workplace if it is prohibited by their employer, cease communications if a person has requested no further contact, and record at least 75% of all their debt collection calls beginning one year after the date of the order and retain those recordings for a period of not less than 90 days after they are recorded.

Expert Global Solutions has more than 32,000 employees and has annual revenues in excess of $ 1 Billion.

Lowe's Home Improvement Needs Some Improvements

I don't mean to be hard to deal with, but I think that Lowe's needs to learn a lesson in customer service.
I have been trying to reach the Doors & Windows department at the local Lowe's Store for a few weeks now.  I have called the local store and been guided through the automated system, but there is no listing for Doors & Windows. I have spoken to the operator and I have been transferred to that department's phone extension only to be on hold with that wonderful elevator music. I have waited over a half an hour for someone to answer while I put my phone on speakerphone and go about what I am doing (and, of course, I have the elevator music blaring as the background noise).  I have done this too many times now (8 to be exact).  I have asked the operator to deliver a message, all to no avail.  I have called the manager, and gotten into the same loop, again to no avail.
I have also called the corporate customer care number and explained the situation.  I am on hold right now for them.  I have been on hold for 34 minutes and I have now been connected to the customer care representative for the store.
I have explained the situation. They are incredulous as to my difficulties, yet they cannot locate my quote in their system and they have now put me on hold again.

Exactly how much time Lowe's expects me to waste waiting for a meaningful interaction with them seems to be infinite. Shawn has finally gotten back to me and cannot find my quote.  We started over again and he cannot find a manufacturer that makes the window I want.
Ok, after about 20 minutes of poking around He finally found a company that makes what I want.

I GUESS THAT DEEP DOWN LOWE'S DOESN'T REALLY  WANT MY BUSINESS.

It really gets me that these companies can say that they want to be the store that they want me to shop at, but I somehow don't think that this is really true.  They need to get their act together.

GE's Call Center

I am researching a sealant that I need to install on an expansion joint.  I saw the GE Silicone II Concrete and Mortar Caulk and had a few questions that were not answered on the label.  So, I decided to call the Customer Information Call Center.  I spoke to a woman who was not very helpful. I asked very specific questions. She did answer one of the four.  In further researching the product I noticed that they had a manufacturer listed that was not GE. I called the number for the manufacturer and spoke to a gentleman.  Each time I spoke to him it was like there was a delay in the transmission of my voice.  From the time I would finish speaking until he started speaking was about 10 seconds.  I thought that was very strange, even if they were out sourcing the call center to India or some other far off place.
I asked the one question that I had gotten an answer to from the previous call center person and he gave me a different answer.   He then proceeded to tell me that the answers were all given to me in my previous call.  I confronted him and he indicated that the person I spoke to when I called GE was sitting right next to him and that she was telling him what she had told me on the previous call.  This finally explained why there was the time delay in his responses to my questions.  I pointed out to him that the lady I had spoken to had given me one answer and he had given me a completely different answer.  I contested that comment.  He then went on to say that the way I ask the lady the question was slightly different from the way I had asked him the question, hence the different answer.  He was hanging on a hair on that one.  I asked another question. He indicated that the previous call had answered that question.  I pointed out that the previous call had not resulted in an answer to the question and that the referral to another company was to a dead telephone number. He told me was not going to answer any further questions.

What the heck is going on here? Is this the way you handle customer service?  Also, the assumption that because I called from the same number, I must be the same person. Where do they get that from.
How about truth in advertising. I called two different numbers to two different companies.

Shame on you GE. I am not going to use the product even if it is right for the job.  You just lost a sale for $900.00. Keep up the good work.  I might even sell my GE stock after that one.

Supreme Court Hears Pharma Case for Pay for Delay on Generic Drugs

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether drug companies can "pay off" generic drug rivals to keep the generic products off the market so that they can continue their monopolistic advantage marketing their patented drugs for longer than the law provides.  This is all done under the guise of settling patent litigation with generic rivals by making deals to keep cheaper products off the market. The case has not grabbed the attention of the press, except in a few isolated cases.

U.S. and state regulators all say the practice costs consumers, insurers and government billions of dollars annually and is a restraint of trade.

The Federal Trade Commission, which has called these arrangements "pay for delay," has fought them in court for years with mixed success, culminating in the case now before the Supreme Court.

In a brief the FTC said, "The continuing stream of monopoly profits is large enough to pay the generic competitors more than they could hope to earn if they entered the market at competitive prices."   They continued by saying that "at the same time, the brand-name manufacturer through their illegal monopoly receives greater profits than it could earn in the face of generic competition."

A host of public interest entities including the Justice Department, the European Union and more than two dozen U.S. state attorneys general view the deals as illegal restraint of trade, but drug companies defend them as a way to avoid potentially lengthy patent litigation.

"In every case that we've been in involved in that resulted in a settlement, it has resulted in years being taken off the patent life," added Paul Bisaro, chief executive of generic drug maker Actavis, Inc. Actavis was formerly Watson Pharmaceuticals.

"It's very unsophisticated to say 'Oh, they get paid a bunch of money to stay off the market,"' said Bisaro.

In the case before the court, Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc, now owned by AbbVie, sued generic drug makers in 2003 to stop cheaper versions of AndroGel, a gel used to treat men with low testosterone.

These payments, as high as $30 million annually, went to rivals Watson, Paddock Laboratories Inc and Par Pharmaceutical Cos, and were intended to help Solvay preserve annual profits estimated at $125 million.

Under the deal, the three would stay off the market until 2015. The patent expires in 2020.

AbbVie was confident that it would win.

"The federal district and appellate courts have both previously ruled that the plaintiff's allegations lacked merit. We are confident that these decisions will be upheld," Adelle Infante, an AbbVie spokeswoman, said in a statement.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.

AbbVie's arrangement is similar to the 40 deals made in the 2012 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30. That was up from 28 the previous year despite FTC efforts to stop them. The FTC said the agreements involved 31 different brand name drugs with total U.S. sales of more than $8.3 billion annually.

The FTC sued to stop the AndroGel arrangement, arguing that it was illegal under antitrust law because the companies divided up the market.

The FTC lost at the district court level and lost an appeal as well. But another appellate court has said the deals were illegal, prompting the Supreme Court to step in to resolve the split.

The FTC also sued Cephalon Inc, accusing it in 2008 of blocking a generic version of the anti-sleep drug Provigil. The case has been stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision.

In 2001 the FTC sued Schering-Plough Corp., later bought by Merck and Co Inc, because of payments to rivals to delay generic versions of its potassium supplement, K-Dur 20. The FTC lost that case.

But in a private case that also involved K-Dur, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in New Jersey, backed the FTC position and found the deals to be illegal.

BATTLES ON CAPITOL HILL, EUROPE

Opponents of pay-for-delay deals in the United States and Europe are not waiting for a high court decision, though.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota and chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel, and Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, introduced legislation in February to make the deals illegal.

Previous bills have failed in part because of opposition from the drug industry, both branded and generic.

In Brussels, EU regulators have eight investigations under way involving more than a dozen drugmakers. The European competition regulator says the deals violate antitrust law.

The decision will be made by an eight-member court. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, without giving a reason.

The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-416.

Since the original post above was written there have been a number of significant developments on this subject.  Here is a good article on these developments.

last modified 10/3/15

JP Morgan Chase Plays Fast and Loose with Escheated Funds?

For those not familiar with the term:
es·cheat  (s-cht)   n.

1. Reversion of land held under feudal tenure to the manor in the absence of legal heirs or claimants.

2. Law

a. Reversion of property to the state in the absence of legal heirs or claimants.

b. Property that has reverted to the state when no legal heirs or claimants exist.

intr. & tr.v. es·cheat·ed, es·cheat·ing, es·cheats Law

To revert or cause to revert by escheat.

---

[Middle English eschete, from Old French (from escheoir, to fall out) and from Anglo-Latin escheta, both from Vulgar Latin *excadre, to fall out : Latin ex-, ex- + Latin cadere, to fall; see kad- in Indo-European roots.

In other words, when you leave money at a bank for too long with no activity in your account, the bank must escheat the funds to the State.  Most State Treasurers in the United States have on-line search engines where you check to see if you have any escheated funds (sometimes called unclaimed funds, or lost money). I have successfully recouped thousands of dollars on multiple occasions on funds that insurance companies have placed with the state for who knows what reason.  Unless you check, you will never know if they are there.
I check my name and all my dependents on an annual basis. I also check my business names.
I once found funds in South Dakota because I used a bill paying service in Sioux Falls and the broker did not have my home address, so they sent the funds to that state.  I have successfully recouped funds in six states.
Most recently I have a very unusual situation that has developed:

XXX LLC (name has been changed to keep anonymity) is a domestic Limited Liability Corporation registered for doing business within the State of New York, having been organized on Feb. 2, 2005.  XXX LLC is currently recorded as being active and in good standing with the Secretary of State of New York.  XXX LLC has maintained a business bank account with JPMorgan Chase Bank.  XXX LLC does business in the Bronx, NY. The address registered with the Secretary of State for New York for filing of service is in Nassau County, NY.

The Office of the Comptroller of New York State has indicated that they are holding funds in excess of $100 that were escheated to them by JPMorgan Chase Bank during the calendar year 2012 on behalf of XXX LLC. They record the address associated with XXX LLC as being in Yonkers, NY (Westchester County).  The New York State Comptroller’s Office also indicates that the XXX LLC account was established through a branch of JPMorgan Chase located within New York State and that the type of property is “Cashier’s/Teller Checks”.

While I can provide documentation to the Comptroller of New York State as to  XXX LLC’s identity, including articles of organization, and, further, I can provide substantiation as to my relationship as managing member of that entity, I cannot provide any substantiation to the Comptroller as to the address that was provided by JPMorgan Chase that they show as affiliated with this entity as required by the Comptroller.  The Comptroller of New York has taken the position that until I “prove” to their satisfaction that the funds are XXX’s, they will not honor an application for claiming the funds.  The Comptroller’s Office is requiring me to provide some substantiation that the address in Yonkers is associated with the XXX LLC for which I am the managing member

I have done a search with the Secretary of State of the State of New York with regard to entity names and there is only one entity by the name of XXX LLC (either active or inactive) that is associated with that name or a name similar to it in New York State, and that entity is the entity for which I am the managing member. I have also checked NJ and CT. In NJ and CT, again, I find no entities with that name.

I have checked the internet for “XXX”. I find no indication that there is any other entity on the internet doing business with this name in the United States, or for that matter, anywhere in the world.

JPMorgan Chase has disavowed any knowledge about the funds that were escheated to the Comptroller of New York or their ability to respond to my inquiry about the funds.  They have directed me to deal with the Comptroller of New York State.

Further, it is my understanding that by banking regulation, JPMorgan Chase would have been required to obtain the articles of organization and other identifying information from XXX LLC before opening an account in the name of XXX LLC.  Since I am the representative of the only entity that could have opened such an account, the funds that were escheated to the Comptroller of New York State by JPMorgan Chase must have been those of XXX LLC (the one and the same XXX LLC for which I am the managing member) and no other.

On March 11, I filed a complaint with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is the regulator of JPMorgan Chase, seeking assistance in this matter.  More specifically, I have asked OCC to require that JP Morgan Chase either:

1. correct the information provided to the Office of the Comptroller of New York State so that we may successfully claim the funds, or, alternatively,

2. Provide auditable substantiation to either me or the OCC that there is another legitimate entity with the same name as ours for which they escheated the funds to the Office of the Comptroller of New York State.

On March 19, I received a call from the executive office of JP Morgan Chase indicating that they have received a copy of the complaint that I filed and that they will respond in writing within 14 business days to both me and the OCC.

******************************************************
Through an unrelated sequence of events I have now learned that the Agent I retained for XXX LLC had maintained a lockbox with the same Post Office Box number in Yonkers New York that the Comptroller of New York State has associated with the unclaimed funds. So, it is clear that the funds are those of XXX LLC. I have now been attempting to get the proper documentation together so that I may claim the funds.

I have tried to get a letter from the Agent indicating that they maintained an Agency account at Hudson Valley Bank and directed my customers to remit their payments in the name of XXX LLC and in their name to that very lockbox in Yonkers, NY. The response I have gotten from the Hudson Valley Bank has been very interesting. They want to know the dates and number of checks that were not deposited in their lockbox in order for them to mail a letter of explanation to the New York State Comptroller's unclaimed funds department. Since I cannot provide that information they have been balking at writing any letter on my behalf. I have offered to indemnify them and hold them harmless for any claims they may sustain should they issue such a letter. Hudson Valley Bank's legal department is reviewing the matter.

I have also requested my Agent to issue a letter to the New York State Comptroller indicating that they are my Agent, that I have a contractual agreement with them, and that as part of the Agent agreement they maintained an Agency Account at Hudson Valley Bank and had remittances sent to the Post Office address in Yonkers New York. While I have not received that letter yet, they have indicated that they would send it.

I will post more on this story as it progresses. However, I must say that my recent interactions with JP Morgan Chase have been anything but friendly and enjoyable. I am glad that I have recently moved many of my accounts to other banks. For other information on JP Morgan Chase please see my other post.

**********************************************************

I have now determined that my Agent also had instructions to other clients of mine to mail remittances to the same Post Office Box in Yonkers, NY and to make those remittances payable to them. The Comptroller of New York State also has funds associated with that address and my Agent listed in their database. I intend to pursue those funds also.

********************************************************

I have now searched the Comptroller of New York State for remittances to my previous Agent and have found that they are also holding funds there also. I am now pursuing those funds too.

********************************************************
5/20/13
I have now received adequate letters from Hudson Vally Bank and my Agent with regard to this matter. I have today filed a claim with the Office of Unclaimed Funds of the State Comptroller to retrieve those funds. I have sent them the letters from Hudson, and my Agent and the articles of organization of XXX LLC and a copy of my driver's license. I hope that they do not need any additional documentation. Shame on JPMorgan Chase for their behavior on this matter.
I will note when the funds are received or if there is a need for more documentation required.

Companies with Brick & Mortar and Internet Presence

When the internet was young and some brick and mortar companies set up internet divisions, they created real mosters.  The policies and inconsistencies created by many companies created a real headache for them in terms of the public's perception of them.  Thankfully, many of these companies have now worked out all the kinks with this duality and have actually benefited from the dual presence.
Many companies will now allow you to order on line and return at the store, or order on line and pick up at the store.

If you have some interesting variations or stories to tell about this phenomenon, I'd like to hear about them.

Please put your comment below so all can enjoy.

New Policy Changes at JPMorgan Chase

I have today received a Monthly Statement from Chase.  This is the second announcement of Policy changes within the month.  For the other one please see my other Chase post.
In this one they announce:

IMPORTANT UPDATES TO THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT
We will be making the following changes to the Deposit Account Agreement for Chase checking and savings accounts, effective March 24, 2013.
We have:

• Added the following language to the Important Definitions section: Debit card transaction: Includes any purchase from a merchant using your ATM card or debit card.
• Modified the agreement to clarify that we will only send one copy of any notice relating to your account, even if the account has more than one owner.
• Revised our Funds Availability Policy.  Under Longer Delays May Apply, we describe circumstances where funds may not be available until the seventh business day after the day of deposit.  We are deleting the sentence saying that the first $200 from your deposit will be available on the next business day, so if we delay availability in those cases the delay may apply to the full amount of the deposit.

All other terms of your account agreement remain the same.  If you have questions about the changes, please call us at the number on the statement or visit your nearest branch.


^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

What I find so interesting is that this very month I made a deposit and they tried to tell me the funds would not be available to me for seven business days. I brought in a Cashiers check from the bank across the street. What are they trying to accomplish here.

I am going to attempt to get a copy of the current deposit account agreement. I wonder if they are going to use the same technique as they tried last month, saying that the new agreement will not be available until March 24, 2013

As a result of the recent odd behavior at JP Morgan Chase I have closed the majority of my accounts, and moved all significant deposits to other banks.

Thanks Jamie for the forced change of banks. I will be moving the others shortly.