BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 350 (Lieu)
As Amended June 14, 2010
Hearing Date: June 22, 2010
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
BCP:jd
SUBJECT
Debt Management and Settlement
DESCRIPTION
This bill would enact the Debt Settlement Service Act for the
purpose of licensing debt settlement service providers. That
Act would, among other things:
prohibit the offering of debt settlement services unless that
provider is licensed by the Department of Corporations, as
specified;
exempt a person or entity licensed as a debt settlement
services provider from the Check Sellers, Bill Payers, and
Proraters Law, as specified;
provide specific requirements that a provider must comply with
in offering debt settlement services, including the
preparation of a written financial analysis, and a good faith
estimate on the length of time it will take to complete the
program, prior to entering into an agreement with a consumer;
and
provide that an agreement is void if the provider is not
licensed by the Act.
This bill would not cap the fees that can be charged by a debt
settlement service provider.
This bill would become effective on January 1, 2012.
BACKGROUND
Debt settlement companies work on a consumer's behalf with the
consumer's creditors to reduce their overall debts. Consumers
(more)
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 2 of ?
who contract with a debt settlement company are typically
instructed to put money aside in a bank account, and add to that
account each month. The debt settlement company then negotiates
with the consumer's creditors to reach a settlement on the debt
that the consumer then pays with funds that were set aside in
the bank account.
On average, the sponsors note that consumers bring between
$20,000 to $30,000 into a debt settlement program. Those
programs generally last three years, although some consumers do
complete the program in 24 months or less. Despite promises to
settle a portion of a consumer's debt for pennies on the dollar,
many question whether the average consumer who enters into debt
settlement actually benefits. The New York Times' April 19,
2009 article entitled Debt Settlers Offer Promises but Little
Help reported:
As many as 2,000 settlement companies operate in the United
States, triple the number of a few years ago. Settlement
ads offering financial salvation blanket radio and
late-night television. Consumers who turn to these
companies sometimes get help from them, personal finance
experts say, but that is not the typical experience. More
often, they say, a settlement company collects a large fee,
often 15% of the total debt, and accomplishes little or
nothing on the consumer's behalf.
. . . [D]ebt settlement firms frequently manage to please
no one. An executive of the American Bankers Association,
representing the credit card industry at a recent forum,
labeled debt settlement companies "very harmful" to both
creditor and consumer. Even debt collectors are upset,
saying the settlement companies prevent them from
collecting.
The premise of debt settlement is simple: A consumer stops
trying to pay even the minimum on his cards. Instead, he
accumulates money in an account that the settlement company
promises to use to strike a bargain with creditors.
Confronted with the certainty of some money now versus the
possibility of no money later, the card company settles for
40 cents on the dollar or less.
Even if the goal makes sense, achieving it can be difficult.
Once the consumer stops paying the minimums, the card
companies increase efforts to collect. Their fees and
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 3 of ?
interest charges do not stop. They may sue. The consumer's
credit score falls through the floor.
Last session, several bills sought to enact a similar licensing
scheme for debt settlement providers - AB 2611 (Lieu, 2008) was
double referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance and
Insurance (and this Committee) but never was heard in that
committee; SB 1678 (Florez, 2008) contained similar provisions
as AB 2611 but failed passage in the Senate Banking, Finance and
Insurance Committee.
Although amended significantly from AB 2611 and SB 1678, this
bill would similarly enact the Debt Settlement Services Act (the
Act) for the purpose of licensing debt settlement service
providers. This bill was originally set for hearing in this
Committee on July 14, 2009, but was put over at the request of
the author. The bill, as amended June 14, 2010, is
substantially similar to the prior version of the bill with the
general exception of numerous clarifying amendments and the
removal of the cap on the amount a provider can charge for their
services - thus, as amended, there is no limitation on when, and
how much, a provider can charge a consumer.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the Check Sellers, Bill Payers, and Proraters Law,
is administered by the Department of Corporations (DOC), and
defines a prorater as a person who, for compensation, engages in
whole or in part in the business of receiving money or evidences
thereof for the purpose of distributing the money or evidences
among creditors in payment or partial payment of the obligations
of the debtor. (Fin. Code Sec. 12000 et seq.)
Existing law limits the fees that may be charged by a prorater,
or by any other person for the prorater's services, to an
origination fee of up to $50, plus 12 percent of the first
$3,000 distributed by the prorater to the creditors of a debtor;
11percent of the next $2,000; and 10 percent of any of the
remaining payments, except for payments made on recurrent
obligations, as defined. (Fin. Code Sec. 12314.)
Existing law provides that when a debtor has not canceled or
defaulted on the performance of his or her contract with the
prorater within 12 months after engaging in the contract with
the prorater, the prorater must refund the origination fee.
(Fin. Code Sec. 12314.)
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 4 of ?
Existing law prohibits a prorater from receiving any fee unless
he or she has the consent of at least 51 percent of the total
amount of indebtedness and of the number of creditors listed in
the prorater's contract with the debtor, or unless a like number
of creditors have accepted a distribution of payment. (Fin. Code
Sec. 12315.)
Existing law provides that if a prorater contracts for,
receives, or makes any charge in excess of the maximum allowed
under the Check Sellers, Bill Payers, and Proraters Law, except
as the result of an accidental and bona fide error, the
prorater's contract with the debtor is void, and the prorater is
required to return to the debtor all charges received from the
debtor. (Fin. Code Sec. 12316.)
Existing law provides an exemption from the Check Sellers, Bill
Payers, and Proraters Law for nonprofit community service
organizations, as specified, and limits the fees that may be
charged by these organizations, when providing services to a
debtor, to a one-time fee of up to $50, plus the lesser of $35
or 8 percent of the amount disbursed monthly for debt management
plans, or up to 15 percent of the amount of debt forgiven for
negotiated debt settlement plans. (Fin. Code Sec. 12104.)
Existing law provides for administrative penalties of up to
$2,500 per violation of the Check Sellers, Bill Payers, and
Proraters Law, and states that any licensee or person who
willfully violates any provision of the law, or any rule or
order adopted pursuant to the law, is liable for a civil penalty
of up to $10,000, enforceable by the Commissioner of the
Department of Corporations (the commissioner). (Fin. Code Sec.
12105.)
This bill would enact the Debt Settlement Services Act,
administered by the Department of Corporations (DOC), and
prohibit a person from providing debt settlement services to an
individual who it reasonably should know resides in this state
at the time it agrees to provide the services, unless that
provider obtains a license pursuant to the provisions of the
Act.
This bill would define "debt settlement services" acting or
offering to act as an intermediary between an individual and one
or more creditors of the individual for the purpose of
adjusting, settling, discharging, reaching a compromise on, or
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 5 of ?
obtaining a concession on the individual's unsecured debt or
other unsecured obligation, where the primary purpose of the
action is to obtain a settlement or satisfaction of the
individual's debt in an amount less than the full principal
amount of the debt, in return for a fee or other consideration.
This bill would define "provider" as a person who provides,
offers to provide, or agrees to provide debt settlement services
directly or through others.
This bill would exclude the following persons and entities from
the licensing requirement: (1) an attorney licensed to practice
law, a certified public accountant, or public accountant when
rendering service in the course of his or her practice; (2) a
family member who negotiates financial concessions; (3) a
judicial officer, a person acting under an order of a court or
administrative agency, or assignee for the benefit of creditors;
(4) a financial institution licensed under state or federal law;
(5) a California licensed title insurer, escrow company, in good
standing, that provides bill paying services if the person does
not provide debt settlement services; (6) a financial planning
services provider, as specified; (7) a person licensed or
registered to originate loans secured by real property, as
specified; and (8) specified nonprofit community service
organizations.
This bill would exempt a person or entity licensed as a debt
settlement services provider from the Check Sellers, Bill
Payers, and Proraters Law, except to the extent that person is
performing services and activities that do not constitute
providing debt settlement service.
This bill would require applicants for licensure to include with
their application for licensure: (1) a nonrefundable $1,000 fee;
(2) evidence of a surety bond of $50,000, or specified
substitute for the bond; and (3) financial statements. This
bill would subject applicants to state and federal background
checks, specify the conditions under which the commissioner may
issue, suspend, deny, or revoke licensure, and provide
applicants who have their licenses suspended, denied, or revoked
with an opportunity to appeal the commissioner's decision.
This bill would require licensees to satisfy several
requirements, including preparing and providing a written
financial analysis, and require that specified disclosures be
given before entering into an agreement with an individual to
provide debt settlement services. This bill would require each
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 6 of ?
agreement to include specified items, including an estimate of
the total amount of fees reasonably expected to be paid over the
term of the agreement, that an individual may terminate the
agreement at any time, and that an individual may cancel the
agreement within five business days and receive a full refund.
This bill would require a provider to furnish a foreign language
translation of the required disclosures and documents, if that
provider communicates with an individual primarily in a language
other than English. The provider must also maintain a toll-free
phone number that allows people to speak to a customer service
representative during ordinary business hours, maintain an
Internet Web site that contains specified information, and
establish a process for handling customer complaints that
provides a response within 20 days to each customer who files a
formal complaint.
This bill would provide that an agreement is void if the
provider is not licensed as a debt settlement services provider
in this state when an individual assents to the agreement. This
bill would provide that any provision of any agreement that
violates specified requirements of the debt settlement services
law is void.
This bill would require a provider that receives money from the
individual for distribution to the individual's creditors to not
commingle the money with the providers funds, require the
provider to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to funds
deposited in the trust account, and allow the individual to
require return of the funds at any time prior to transmission.
This bill would further permit the commission to require, by
rule, that providers who receive money for distribution obtain a
fidelity bond, as specified.
This bill would prohibit specified acts and practices by
providers, allow individuals, law enforcement agencies, and the
commissioner to bring actions against licensees for violations
of the debt settlement services law, and subject violators to
administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for failure to
comply.
This bill would additionally provide that if an agreement is
void, an individual may recover all money paid by or on behalf
of the individual, and that an individual may also recover
compensatory damages for injury caused by a violation of the Act
and their reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 7 of ?
This bill would, except as permitted by the California
Arbitration Act, prohibit an agreement from containing a
provision that modifies or limits otherwise available forums or
procedural rights, including the right to trial by jury, that
are generally available to the individual under law other than
as provided in this division.
This bill would become effective on January 1, 2012.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author,
Credit counseling and debt settlement services are in demand
now more than ever. Statistics show that median household
income has continued to decline, unemployment levels are
[at] record highs, and the overall economy is suffering
through a recession. As the recession worsens, debt
settlement service becomes an even more critical piece of
the overall economic solution for consumers.
AB 350 implements a licensing framework for debt settlement
providers who negotiate on the behalf of consumers with
their creditors to lower their debt for a fee. The DOC has
issued orders for many of these entities to comply with the
prorater's law. However, because debt settlement companies
do not directly control the consumer's money, and only
negotiate on their behalf, they are not proraters as defined
in the law. Proraters are defined in current law as persons
who receive money from a debtor for the purpose of
distributing the money among the debtor's creditors in full
or partial payment of the debtor's obligations. . . . Debt
settlement companies do not handle or control the consumer's
money, and therefore are not proraters per the definition.
Instead, debt settlement companies operate as intermediaries
who negotiate with creditors on some type of settlement for
the consumer's outstanding debt.
Under current law, debt settlement providers, credit
counselors, and debt management organizations are not
licensed or regulated. The Financial Code only requires the
registration of non-profit credit counselors with the
Department of Corporations. However, their oversight is
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 8 of ?
limited to registration.
2. Significant developments since last year
While the author has made numerous clarifying amendments to the
bill since July 14, 2009, there are two significant developments
since that hearing date - a proposed ban on advance fees by the
Federal Trade Commission, and the recent amendment that removed
the previous cap on fees. Although that prior cap would have
codified a fee that opponents consider excessive - the removal
of that cap results in a bill that would enact a regulatory
structure without addressing a key feature of that service, the
fee. Due to that serious deficiency, and the numerous remaining
issues, the Committee should consider holding this bill and
urging both supporters and opponents to formulate a true
compromise product that will complement the final federal
regulation that is to be released within several months.
Considering that the enactment date of this bill is January 1,
2012 - a full year and a half away - both the supporters and
opponents do have time to craft a complete, workable regulatory
statute that can be enacted on or before that January 1, 2012
date.
a. Proposed federal ban on advance fees
On July 30, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission announced
proposed amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) that
would, among other things, prohibit debt relief services from
charging fees until they have provided the offered services
(settling debts). The intent of those proposed amendments was
to "to combat deceptive and abusive telemarketing of debt
relief services." In support of the proposed amendments, the
National Association of Attorneys General submitted a letter
signed by the Attorneys General of 41 states, including
California's Attorney General, that stated:
Prohibiting the collection of up-front fees would provide
regulators and enforcement authorities a bright line
means of readily identifying unscrupulous entities that
merit immediate investigation and prosecution. Moreover,
a regulatory scenario in which up-front fees are not
prohibited places those debt relief providers who prefer
not to require consumers to pay substantial up-front fees
at a competitive disadvantage.
The debt settlement companies examined by the States
cannot demonstrate any justification for their
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 9 of ?
substantial advance fees based on the effort required to
set up an account. In fact, the industry's own reports
suggest that it is marketing, lead generation and
referral costs that drive the debt settlement industry's
zeal for up-front fees. In its 2008 Preliminary Report,
TASC acknowledged that the primary costs incurred by
settlement companies are not service related, but rather
are marketing and other costs to acquire clients. From
the complaints received and the cases brought, the States
have seen little evidence that debt settlement companies
provide any other useful services such as credit
counseling, debtor education, or getting interest rates
reduced before settlement negotiations are initiated,
which can take several months, or even years. . . .
In urging the FTC to prohibit the charging of advance
fees, the States submit that a prohibition on advance
fees will prevent the substantial monetary losses
suffered by consumers, level the playing field,
discourage unscrupulous operators from flocking to this
industry and facilitate efficient and timely enforcement.
It should be noted that if advance fees are prohibited under
the TSR, that prohibition will not specify the amount of a fee
that can be charged after services are performed. Consumers
Union (CU) asserts that the issue of allowable fees cannot be
left solely to the FTC as the rule under the TSR will not
cover contracts without incoming or outgoing phone calls, that
the proposed rule exempts contracts that are signed
face-to-face, and that the FTC's rule addresses the timing,
but not amount, of the fees.
b. June 14, 2010 amendments remove the fee provisions and
do not address prior concerns about the fees that may be
charged by a provider
Much of the debate over the past several years has focused on
the amount of the fee that can be charged, and when that fee
can be charged. Last year, this bill proposed a setup fee of
up to five percent of the principal amount of debt brought
into the program and capped fees at 20 percent of that debt.
Concerns were expressed about the amount of the fee and the
ability to charge that fee prior to services being performed.
This Committee's analysis also raised questions about the lack
of financial incentive for a provider to deliver the best
possible service and noted that:
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 10 of ?
[o]ne way in which that incentive can be created would be
to, instead of allowing a provider to charge based on a
percentage of the debt brought into the program, allow
the provider to charge based upon a percentage of the
debt actually settled. Basing payment upon the amount of
debt actually settled would create a strong incentive for
providers to work to settle as much debt as possible.
AB 350 was subsequently amended on April 5, 2010 to permit the
charging of a flat fee of 18 percent of the principal amount
of debt enrolled, to be collected at no more than one percent
per month, or alternatively, a fee calculated on the amount of
the savings that does not exceed 30 percent of the amount of
settled debt, calculated at the time of settlement. In
response to concerns about the amounts of those fees, and the
continued inclusion of an "advance fee" provision (allowing
for the collection of fees before any settlements), the most
recent amendments strike out the fee provision entirely. The
Center for Responsible Lending, in opposition, expresses
concern that:
[the amendments] would allow debt settlement companies to
adopt any fee structure they choose, and continue to
strip wealth from vulnerable consumers by charging
substantial and unearned fees, leaving consumers worse
off. Given the dismal performance data and the harm to
consumers, it would be irresponsible policy to abdicate
the establishment of meaningful fee protections for
consumers.
From a policy standpoint, the removal of the fee cap leaves a
bill with a regulatory structure that includes no limit on the
fees that may be charged by an industry that has recently been
subject to intense scrutiny about those fees. CU further
asserts:
By remaining entirely silent on fees, AB 350 as modified
by the June [14] amendments would exempt the debt
settlement industry from the application of the current
fee caps in the Proraters Law (the industry disputes the
application of that law if the money is held by a third
party); would leave the industry to charge any fee it
likes; and would permit existing harmful fee practices.
Under AB 350, debt settlement companies could:
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 11 of ?
Charge and keep the full fee even if not one penny
of the debt is settled.
Deduct the entire fee from the consumer's savings
account as early as it likes. Commonly, the full fee
is deducted from the savings during the first half of
the contract. By the time the consumer discovers that
his or her debts are not being settled, he or she has
paid all or a big chunk of the fee.
Use an acceleration clause to collect the full fee
even sooner than otherwise set forth in the contract.
Take fees based on installment settlements which do
not eliminate the debt if installments are missed.
It should be noted that the author, sponsors, and opponents
have held numerous meetings where the issue of the amount of,
and timing of, the fee were discussed. While the prior
version of the bill did include a savings model - as noted
above, that model permitted a fee of up to 30 percent of the
savings (CU suggests 15 percent), and still allowed the use of
a "flat fee" that charged consumers before actual settlements
occurred (opponents object to this model).
Given the lack of agreement as to an appropriate, workable fee
structure and the legitimate policy concerns about approving a
complex regulatory scheme without addressing the pivotal issue
of fees - the Committee should consider whether the bill
should be held in committee for purposes of allowing the
supporters and opponents to develop a compromise package that
takes into account the upcoming amendment to the TSR, provides
a workable fee structure for all parties, and adequately
protects consumers who do elect to use a debt settlement
provider. If held in Committee, those interested parties
should work to bring forward Legislation next year so that a
bill can be enacted by January 1, 2012, the proposed effective
date of this bill.
SHOULD THE BILL BE HELD IN COMMITTEE?
3. Opposition's numerous unresolved concerns
Although the author has taken amendments to address concerns,
staff notes that there are significant unresolved issues between
the supporters and opponents. To that effect, CU provided the
author and the Committee with an Outline of Issues of Concern on
May 17, 2010 - that five page document outlines their concerns
with regards to fees, pre-contractual determinations of
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 12 of ?
suitability, contractual provisions and cancellation,
advertisements, voidness, statutory damages, waiver of consumers
rights and remedies, and numerous license-related issues. That
document included the following significant concerns and issues
regarding AB 350:
The determination of the ability to make a savings
payments must consider more than "basic living expenses."
Consumers should have 90 days to cancel the contract,
and need a required form to exercise the right to cancel.
Contracts are not required to set forth the amount that
the consumer must save.
Advertising claims should be banned unless they are true
for at least 80 percent of recent customers.
Disclosures should be required for advertisements,
especially for those ads on the internet.
Contracts should be void if financial analysis
requirement is not met.
Refunds should be required without the need to sue the
company if the contract is void.
Statutory damages should be added to the remedies
provision.
Monthly accounting should be automatic so consumers can
see how unsettled debts are growing.
Disclosures should inform consumers that not all
creditors will negotiate with debt settlement companies.
The proposed $50,000 bond should be increased.
Financial statements should be audited, not just
reviewed.
If an applicant uses more than one form agreement, each
should be filed with their application.
New agreements and/or fee schedules should be filed with
the DOC.
Advertisements should be filed with the DOC.
The determination of qualification and suitability
should be in writing and retained.
Despite the recent June 14, 2010 amendments (almost a month
after that list of issues was provided), CU notes that "[m]ost
of those items remain of concern, including elements of the
cancellation provision, the presentation of internet
disclosures, and other issues."
CRL appears to share similar concerns as CU regarding the
existing provisions, and additionally expresses concern about a
provision contained within the June 14, 2010 amendments that
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 13 of ?
permits a debt settlement provider to receive money for
distribution to the individual's creditors. That amendment was
requested by CareOne, a licensed prorater, who believes that the
"holds funds" model (a model where the provider has access to
the borrower's funds for purposes of settling debts) is
appropriate because "[t]here is no evidence that any model is
more prone to abuse than another and both models are legally
authorized in nearly every state. With proper safeguards and
bonding requirements, all fund models can effectively serve the
needs of consumers."
Given the numerous unresolved issues, the Committee should
consider whether it is appropriate to enact a regulatory
structure that is silent on fees and subject to numerous
outstanding concerns - many of those concerns go to the core of
the regulatory structure itself. If the bill is held in
Committee, that action would not result in the lack of
regulation for years to come, provided that supporters and
opponents work together to formulate a workable compromise that
can be enacted by January 1, 2012 - the effective date of this
bill.
SHOULD THE BILL BE HELD IN COMMITTEE?
4. Judiciary related issues
In addition to the concerns mentioned above, the bill does raise
several issues of particular interest to this Committee. Given
the unresolved nature of the arbitration provision, if the bill
is held in Committee and interested parties agree to continue
working to formulate a compromise product, that product should
include a compromise on the arbitration provision as well.
a. Arbitration
Specifically, this bill would provide that, except as
permitted by the California Arbitration Act (CAA), an
agreement shall not contain a provision that modifies or
limits otherwise available forums or procedural rights that
are generally available to the individual under law other than
as provided in the Act. Since the CAA generally allows
parties to agree to submit any existing or future controversy
to arbitration, the bill would permit a debt settlement
company to require a consumer to agree to submit any dispute
to arbitration, thereby limiting the private right of action
that may be brought under (b), below.
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 14 of ?
The Consumer Attorneys of California, in a request for
amendments striking the reference to the CAA, further contend
that this provision would "make[] all contracts between the
debt settlement companies and the consumers subject to
mandatory binding pre-dispute arbitration, which would
essentially allow the debt negotiation companies to contract
out any and all consumer protections provided in this bill.
Consumers should not be lulled into thinking they are being
provided protections under the law that can easily be taken
away by a pre-dispute binding arbitration provision."
b. Private right of action with reasonable attorney's fees
This bill would also permit a consumer to bring a civil action
for a violation of the Act, including when an agreement is
void, to recover compensatory damages for injury caused by the
violation, and allow recovery of reasonable attorney's fees
and costs. Since compensatory damages are generally intended
to make a consumer "whole," the likely amount of recovery in
such an action (exclusive of attorney's fees) are the amounts
paid for fees and potentially late charges or other penalties
as a result of the provider's violation. Despite somewhat
limited damages, the attorney fee provision would arguably
permit an injured individual to locate a willing attorney to
bring their case for a violation of the Act, provided that the
debt settlement company had not required the consumer to agree
to arbitration, as discussed above in (a).
It should also be noted that if a provider violates both the
Act and the Unfair Business Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code
Sec. 17200 et seq.), a consumer may not recover under both the
Act and Section 17200 for the same act or practice.
5. Controversy surrounding licensing of for-profit debt
settlement service providers
The Department of Corporations has previously taken the position
that for-profit debt settlement service providers should be
licensed under the Check Sellers, Bill Payers, and Proraters
Law, and brought enforcement actions against certain debt
settlement service providers who do not have a proraters
license.
On July 15, 2008, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District,
upheld the DOC's position regarding the application of the
proraters law to certain debt settlement service providers.
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 15 of ?
(Nationwide Asset Services, Inc. v. DuFauchard (2008) 164
Cal.App.4th 1121.) In affirming the Superior Court's judgment,
the Court of Appeal held: "If plaintiffs indeed have managed to
'receive' the money of their customers in all but name, then
their conduct is precisely that which the statute has targeted.
There would not be any reason to permit them to evade the
statute's salutary requirement of subjecting their practices to
defendant's licensing oversight for the protection of
consumers." (Id. at 1126.)
Despite the above decision, this bill would specifically exempt
individuals licensed under the Debt Settlement Service Act from
the proraters law based upon the sponsor's belief that this bill
is a better match for the business model of debt settlement
companies than that law.
Support : American Coalition of Companies Organized to Reduce
Debt (ACCORD); American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; Freedom Financial Network
Opposition : Center for Responsible Lending; Coalition for
Quality Credit Counseling; Consumer Credit Counseling Service;
Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; National
Consumer Law Center; one individual
HISTORY
Source : The Association of Settlement Companies (TASC); United
States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives (USOBA)
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 69 (Lieu, as amended April 23, 2007), would have enacted two
separate regulatory schemes, one tailored to the licensure of
debt settlement service providers, and the other tailored to the
licensure of debt management providers. The contents of this
bill were replaced with provisions regarding reporting by
mortgage loan servicers on January 7, 2008.
AB 2611 (Lieu, 2008), contained provisions similar to those in
AB 69. This bill never received a hearing in the Senate
Banking, Finance and Insurance Committee.
AB 350 (Lieu)
Page 16 of ?
SB 1678 (Florez, 2008), contained similar provisions to those in
AB 69. This bill failed passage in the Senate Banking, Finance
and Insurance Committee.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Banking and Finance Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 1)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 1)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 4)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 56, Noes 22)
Senate Banking, Finance and Insurance Committee (Ayes 10, Noes
0)
**************