suzuki company – SOC USA http://www.soc-usa.org/ Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:04:55 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8 https://www.soc-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/icon-26-150x150.png suzuki company – SOC USA http://www.soc-usa.org/ 32 32 This guide will simplify the creation of a debt consolidation strategy https://www.soc-usa.org/fast-payday-loans-no-credit-check-find-your-payday-quick-cash-loan-now/ https://www.soc-usa.org/fast-payday-loans-no-credit-check-find-your-payday-quick-cash-loan-now/#respond Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:55:05 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/the-guide-that-simplifies-creating-a-debt-consolidation-plan/ Did you also know that the number one reason Americans take out loans is to consolidate and manage their debt? Consolidationnow says debt consolidation strategy is one of many ways to help manage your personal and financial debt. Unfortunately, the US debt industry has become a common way of living for many. What exactly is a debt consolidation […]]]>

Did you also know that the number one reason Americans take out loans is to consolidate and manage their debt? Consolidationnow says debt consolidation strategy is one of many ways to help manage your personal and financial debt. Unfortunately, the US debt industry has become a common way of living for many.

What exactly is a debt consolidation strategy? How can it be of help to you on your way to financial security. These are great queries and the answer to them is critical for your financial well-being and your future.

The good news is that you have come to the right spot to find the answers you are looking for. Read on to find out more about debt consolidating and how it can help manage your personal debt.

What is debt consolidation, exactly?

People in America are often in financial distress due to personal loans. It might seem impossible for someone to solve their debt problems, but consolidation is an option. This is a plan that will help you consolidate all of the debts you have in order to lower monthly payments.

It distributes the payments over a more extended period of time. It makes managing personal debt much simpler. It can be a way of making it much easier to pay down your debts.

To consolidate your debts, it is a good idea first to list all your debts. Then, you can create a budget according to your income. You will be able to calculate how much money is available each month to repay your debts.

High interest rate debts should be targeted. The longer you wait to pay them the more money you will get. Once you have done that, list your monthly expenses. These can include rent, gas, utility bills, and food. Reduce or eliminate items that are not necessary.

Once you have all the numbers, you can get a good idea what your budget is. This will help you to stay on track to pay off your debts. Avoid impulse buying, and avoid credit card debt. Click here to find out more about debt consolidation loans.

Reasons to start your debt consolidation planning

There are many factors that people consider when creating their own debt consolidation plans. These are the top reasons people consolidate their debt. This will help to determine if it is time for you.

They are ready and able to get rid of the debt

Consolidating all your debt into one large loan is a crucial first step towards financial stability and the end of personal debt. The goal of debt consolidation is to reduce your debt. It doesn’t remove all the debt that you owe.

Paying off remaining debt is a must if you want to make the most of your plans. Keep your credit card debt to a minimum. To pay your debt off, you will have to pay more than your minimum monthly payments each month.

They pay high amounts of interest

A loan consolidation plan is a great choice for those who have high interest loans. Consolidating your debt is a smart move if you have a debt load that exceeds 15%. Converting your credit card debt to a low-interest card will save you tons.

They want a fixed rate of return

It’s easy just to get carried away in the promise of a variable rate. However, these rates are usually bait to get you to sign. After the teaser period, the real work begins. This is the time when the interest rate will jump up and become expensive.

This makes it impossible to predict the interest rate, which is bad for budgeting. It is a smart move to consolidate your debts and loan for a fixed-interest rate, so you can know exactly what monthly payment you are making.

They want a longer term with lower payouts.

The only downside to a consolidation plan for debt is that it will extend your payment period. This is necessary to reduce your monthly debt payments and make it much easier to pay them off. Although you may end paying more over the course of time, this will allow you to manage your debt.

It gives you more time to make money so that your monthly payment can be increased and you can pay off your debts more quickly.

They are sick of numerous monthly payments

Multiple monthly payments can often be overwhelming. The best way to make your life easier is to combine all of your monthly debt payments into one monthly payment.

They are always behind.

It can be hard to remember the due dates for multiple monthly payments. You only need one due date to remember for personal debt payments when consolidating it.

Make your debt consolidation plan today

A debt consolidation program is an excellent option for those who have lots of student loan and credit card debt. It will streamline your debt repayment process and give you one due date for your monthly payments. It helps you to save money by lowering your interest rate.

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/fast-payday-loans-no-credit-check-find-your-payday-quick-cash-loan-now/feed/ 0
Is A Debt Consolidation Loan The Best Choice For You? https://www.soc-usa.org/is-a-debt-consolidation-loan-the-best-choice-for-you/ https://www.soc-usa.org/is-a-debt-consolidation-loan-the-best-choice-for-you/#respond Thu, 19 Aug 2021 21:59:50 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/is-a-debt-consolidation-loan-the-best-choice-for-you/ No one likes being in debt or accumulating debt over a period of time. However, people often find themselves in a situation where their finances have got out of hand and they have a mountain of debt that they have to pay off. These situations are more and more common and it is always best […]]]>


No one likes being in debt or accumulating debt over a period of time. However, people often find themselves in a situation where their finances have got out of hand and they have a mountain of debt that they have to pay off. These situations are more and more common and it is always best to consider your options when you are going through a financial crisis. One of the best options available to people in debt is to choose debt consolidation to get out of debt.

It is basically a personal loan that individuals can use to pay off high interest debt, such as credit card debt. When you consolidate your debt, you can pay off your credit card balances in full and benefit from a simplified repayment plan. This could help save you time and money, depending on the terms of the loan and the amount of your debt. However, you need to consider your financial goals and your circumstances before deciding if a debt consolidation loan is the best choice for you. Here’s what you need to know about it.

When Should You Consider a Debt Consolidation Loan?

Personal loans can be acquired for any reason and anything, but if you are using them for debt consolidation, here are the cases where it can work for you:

You have an excellent credit rating

People can get personal loans with any credit score, but if you want lower interest rates and great terms, Harris and his partners advise that you should have an excellent credit score, which should be above 670.

Your debt is at high interest

The average interest rate for personal loans is 9.41%, but the average interest rate for credit card debt is 16%. This is a significant difference, and people who can qualify for lower rates than what they are already paying should consider debt consolidation loans to save money in the long run.

You have a repayment plan

One of the worst things about credit card debt is that it is constantly revolving, which means you borrow and pay the funds off on an ongoing basis, but there is no repayment plan. . If you use your credit card and only pay the minimum each month, you could end up paying off your debt forever. However, personal loans have a repayment plan which makes them a great option if you can stick with it as it helps you get out of debt quickly.

While you will have obvious benefits if you get a debt consolidation loan, there are times when it might not be the best option for paying off your credit card debt. These include:

You haven’t changed your spending problems

A debt consolidation loan is advantageous because it means that you can use the credit available on your credit card. However, once you transfer the debt and continue to accumulate debt on the card you recently paid off, your financial situation could get worse. Hence, you need to sort out your spending problems before acquiring a debt consolidation loan.

You have poor or fair credit

Even people with bad credit can get approved for personal loans, but they will pay higher interest rates. This will increase their costs and sometimes make monthly payments difficult to repay, defeating the original goal of getting a loan.

You only have a small amount of debt

If you think you can pay off your existing credit card debt quickly over the next six months to a year, the savings you would make from a debt consolidation loan are not going to benefit you. You don’t need to take out a personal loan when you can easily pay your monthly credit card payments.

Other articles from mtltimes.ca – totimes.caotttimes.ca

wedding package

How Julie Scott Redefined The Wedding Leak – Helicopter Wedding Package



Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/is-a-debt-consolidation-loan-the-best-choice-for-you/feed/ 0
Let’s cancel everyone’s student debt, for the good of the economy https://www.soc-usa.org/lets-cancel-everyones-student-debt-for-the-good-of-the-economy/ https://www.soc-usa.org/lets-cancel-everyones-student-debt-for-the-good-of-the-economy/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 04:37:21 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/lets-cancel-everyones-student-debt-for-the-good-of-the-economy/ Fix the debt. Photo: Spencer Platt / Getty Images At the end of last year, Republicans in Congress passed a $ 1.5 trillion tax cut, allowing the rich and corporate to claim the lion’s share. The GOP did not justify this policy on the grounds that all corporate shareholders and trust fund hipsters deserved increase […]]]>


Fix the debt.
Photo: Spencer Platt / Getty Images

At the end of last year, Republicans in Congress passed a $ 1.5 trillion tax cut, allowing the rich and corporate to claim the lion’s share. The GOP did not justify this policy on the grounds that all corporate shareholders and trust fund hipsters deserved increase their wealth. On the contrary, the party argued that no matter how it was thought to make the rich richer, the tax cuts would ultimately benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and reducing unemployment.

But what if we could have achieved these goals, at roughly the same cost, by forgoing tax cuts – and instead wiping out every penny of student debt in the United States?

A new research paper from Bard College’s Levy Economics Institute suggests that this was, in fact, an option.

In the United States today, 44 million people collectively carry $ 1.4 trillion in student debt. This giant pile of financial obligations is not only a burden on individual borrowers, but on the entire economy of the country. The astronomical rise in college tuition fees – combined with stagnant entry-level salaries for college graduates – has depressed the purchasing power of a large and growing portion of the workforce. Many of these workers find it difficult to keep their heads above water; 11 percent aggregate student loan debt is now over 90 days past due or overdue. Others are unable to invest in a home, vehicle, or start a family (and engage in all the myriad acts of consumerism that come with it).

So if the government were to write off all the student debt it owns (which is over 90 percent of outstanding student debt) and buy out all the private holders of that debt, an increase in consumer demand – and therefore, jobs and economic growth – would ensue.

According to the Levy Institute article, written by economists Scott Fullwiler, Stephanie Kelton, Catherine Ruetschlin and Marshall Steinbaum, canceling all student debt would increase GDP by $ 86 billion to $ 108 billion per year over the next decade. . This would add between 1.2 and 1.5 million jobs to the economy and reduce the unemployment rate by 0.22 to 0.36%.

Thus, the macroeconomic benefit of canceling all student debt would be substantial. The main (supposed) drawbacks of such a policy would be a higher deficit, the potentially regressive distributive consequences of debt cancellation and (related) the unfairness of rewarding some well-off borrowers who do not “deserve” it. Of course, all of these criticisms would apply more forcefully to the recently passed tax reduction bill. Few would say that raising Harvey Weinstein’s after-tax income was a laudable public policy goal. But no one thinks that one should judge the merits of a tax cut based on whether it rewards or not. all unsavory individuals.

And in the case of student debt cancellation, concerns about injustice are largely driven by status quo bias. It is true that increasing the net worth of some upper-middle-class Harvard graduates by $ 200,000 – while giving nothing to working-class City College graduates who have already paid off their student loans – is not , in itself, a progressive proposition. But seen as a whole, the post-debt cancellation world is considerably more equal than the one we live in today.

While the richest 20 percent of earners have the highest absolute student debt, low-income minority borrowers have the highest delinquency rates. This disparity is rooted in structural disadvantages based on race, including, according to research by Marshall Steinbaum, “Segregation within higher education, which relegates minority students to the poorest institutions, discrimination in the credit and labor markets, and the underlying racial wealth gap which means that Black and Hispanic students have a much smaller cushion of family wealth to fall back on, both to fund higher education in the first place and also when struggling to repay debt. “

One implication of this, as political analyst Matt Bruenig has demonstrated, is that student debt dramatically increases the racial wealth gap among young Americans.

More broadly, the explosion of student debt in America has been orchestrated by deliberate government policies, justified by premises that have proven to be false. Specifically, the government encouraged young Americans to view even high student debt as a safe investment in their own future, on the grounds that the economy suffered from a “skills gap” – there was an abundance of high-paid white collar workers. jobs to be created or filled, if only the supply of highly skilled workers increased to meet the demand. It turned out to be fiction – one that victimized a generation of working class students. As Steinbaum writes:

The reason for [the] great expansion of the population of [student loan] borrowers is the deterioration of the labor market. Scarce jobs are being given to the most accredited applicants, triggering a mad race for certification, and this failed race is worse for minorities. That young cohorts are better educated than their predecessors should lead to higher lifetime earnings, if the mythology of “skills shortage” that drove the expansion of federal student loan programs were true. Instead, increasingly expensive credentials translate into jobs that pay the same or less, leading to escalating debt.

Student debtors have in very many cases been persuaded into making bad financial decisions by their own government – which, as the owner of their debts, now profits from these mistakes. By wiping out the slate, Uncle Sam would not only improve macroeconomics, but also increase its fairness and reduce racial inequalities.

And once that is done, the government can turn its attention to ensuring that no prospective student is ever burdened with such massive debt again. For public education to function as a vehicle for socio-economic mobility – in a world where tuition fees continue to rise and stagnant salaries for university graduates – we will need a new model for funding education. ‘Higher Education. A simple and remarkably affordable option would be to make public universities free.

Doing all of this would likely require some significant tax increases. Fortunately, there are now a large number of business owners and shareholders of mid-size companies who could greatly use one.



Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/lets-cancel-everyones-student-debt-for-the-good-of-the-economy/feed/ 0
Gambling Debt, Stock Tip Leads to $ 1 Million Settlement But Mickelson No Charges https://www.soc-usa.org/gambling-debt-stock-tip-leads-to-1-million-settlement-but-mickelson-no-charges/ https://www.soc-usa.org/gambling-debt-stock-tip-leads-to-1-million-settlement-but-mickelson-no-charges/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 04:37:20 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/gambling-debt-stock-tip-leads-to-1-million-settlement-but-mickelson-no-charges/ NEW YORK (Reuters) – At the end of July 2012, Phil Mickelson, one of the world’s most famous golfers, received a phone call from a well-known professional sports player, William “Billy” Walters. At the time, according to US officials, Mickelson owed a gambling debt to Walters, and Walters had good stock advice: buy shares in […]]]>


NEW YORK (Reuters) – At the end of July 2012, Phil Mickelson, one of the world’s most famous golfers, received a phone call from a well-known professional sports player, William “Billy” Walters.

At the time, according to US officials, Mickelson owed a gambling debt to Walters, and Walters had good stock advice: buy shares in the food company Dean Foods Co.

Four days later, Mickelson owned $ 2.4 million in Dean Foods shares, according to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. A few weeks later, he made a profit of $ 931,000 when the company announced a spin-off that sent its share price higher. Mickelson then paid off his debt to Walters.

On Thursday, U.S. officials said Mickelson had agreed to donate more than $ 1 million in profits and interest in an insider trading case against Walters and the former CEO of Dean Foods, Thomas Davis.

“Put simply, Mickelson made money that wasn’t his,” SEC chief law enforcement chief Andrew Ceresney said at a press conference in New York.

Mickelson, 45, was named a “backup defendant” in the SEC civil lawsuit, a term for someone who is not accused of wrongdoing but who has received ill-gotten gains as a result of illegal acts of others.

His lawyers said Mickelson was “an innocent bystander” who “feels justified” in not being charged. One of the lawyers also said that Mickelson takes responsibility “for the decisions and associations that led him to be part of this investigation.”

It is not clear whether Mickelson benefited from a 2014 appeals court ruling that limited the ability of authorities to bring insider trading charges against people who obtain second-hand or third-party privileged information. third hand, rather than directly from a company insider.

Gregory Morvillo, a New York attorney who handles insider trading cases, said it was possible the ruling would have a “chilling effect” on the SEC’s authority to lay charges against Mickelson.

Andrew Ceresney, SEC Enforcement Director, speaks at a press conference on transactions related to golfer Phil Michelson, Las Vegas sports bettor William “Billy” Walters and former Dean Food President Thomas Davis, both charged with insider trading, in New York, United States, May 19, 2016. REUTERS / Brendan McDermid

It remains to be seen whether the allegations will impact Mickelson’s reputation. His lawyer said the golfer appreciated that his corporate sponsors decided to continue their deals with him.

THE SPONSOR IS “DISAPPOINTED”

Several sponsors, including golf club maker Callaway, did not respond to requests for comment.

But accounting firm KPMG said, “While we are disappointed with what the SEC announced today, we appreciate that Phil’s statement makes it clear that he respects and shares KPMG’s values. We accept his statement of personal responsibility and commitment and have nothing more to add.

Amgen, who uses Mickelson to market their bestselling arthritis drug Enbrel, said in a statement: “While we cannot comment on the SEC matter involving Phil Mickelson, we have been working with Phil for many years and he is. a passionate patient advocate. with psoriatic arthritis.

Mickelson, who is ranked 17th on the PGA Tour this year, was known for years as “the best player to ever win a major tournament.” But he lost that tag with a 2004 Masters victory. He has since won two more Masters titles and two other majors.

Nicknamed “Lefty” and “Phil the Thrill”, Mickelson is one of golf’s greatest attractions and pleasures to interact with fans along the course. Although he is capable of boosting television ratings, Mickelson is also admired for being a committed family man and generous donor to charity.

The Professional Golfers Association website said Mickelson had career earnings of over $ 79 million on the tour, just behind Tiger Woods’ $ 110 million. In 2015, Forbes magazine estimated that Mickelson was making more than $ 40 million a year from appearances and sponsorship deals, which also include Barclays PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp and Rolex.

The SEC said Mickelson placed bets with Walters before and after July 2012, when the player called Mickelson with his Dean Foods tip.

Walters and Davis, the former CEO of Dean Foods, have embarked on a multi-year program to trade the food company’s shares ahead of big company announcements, according to federal officials. Davis has already pleaded guilty.

Mickelson’s $ 2.4 million position in Dean Foods using three brokerage accounts eclipsed his other investment holdings in those accounts, which together amounted to less than $ 250,000, the SEC said. .

The Dean Foods case was brought by Preet Bharara, the American attorney in Manhattan, who racked up a near-perfect track record in dozens of insider trading cases before the 2014 appeals court ruling. limits the scope of insider trading laws.

At a press conference, Bharara declined to comment on the effect of the ruling on the Dean Foods case, but acknowledged that it had an impact on his ability to pursue some “nefarious behavior”.

Additional reports by Nate Raymond and Mark Lamport-Stokes; Editing by Dan Grebler and Bill Trott



Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/gambling-debt-stock-tip-leads-to-1-million-settlement-but-mickelson-no-charges/feed/ 0
How a Small Business Became the “Debt Collection Wal-Mart” https://www.soc-usa.org/how-a-small-business-became-the-debt-collection-wal-mart/ https://www.soc-usa.org/how-a-small-business-became-the-debt-collection-wal-mart/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 04:37:20 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/how-a-small-business-became-the-debt-collection-wal-mart/ Some of the companies that take advantage of the student loan business have names that you have never heard of unless you are behind on your loan. NCO Financial Systems was once a family business founded in 1926 in the suburbs of Philadelphia to collect all kinds of bad debt. Like many other small collection […]]]>


Some of the companies that take advantage of the student loan business have names that you have never heard of unless you are behind on your loan.

NCO Financial Systems was once a family business founded in 1926 in the suburbs of Philadelphia to collect all kinds of bad debt. Like many other small collection agencies, NCO got involved in student loan collection in 1996, when it landed its first contract with the US Department of Education. It was the same year that Congress privatized Sallie Mae.

NCO went public that year and grew rapidly by acquiring other debt collectors, becoming what an admiring Merrill Lynch analyst called the “Debt Collection Wal-Mart.” In 2004, JPMorgan Chase’s private equity arm, One Equity Partners, privately owned NCO.

The company has been viewed favorably by Wall Street for its technological expertise in debtor tracking. But according to complaints filed by the Federal Trade Commission and 19 state attorneys general, NCO also resorted to a practice that debt collectors have used for centuries – instilling fear.

If they’re behind on a student loan or other debt, borrowers have heard about NCO – over and over again, often the same day, sometimes at home, sometimes at work, the FTC billed in 2013.

You may have been harassed by NCO even though you never got your student loan. In 2007, Jesse Kennedy of Lawrenceville, Ga. Briefly considered borrowing money to pay for an auto repair school and completed loan documents co-signed by his father. But he says he never completed the loan application and received no money.

Six years later, Kennedy was contacted by an NCO affiliate and told him he owed $ 58,000 on a student loan. He disputed the debt, but the $ 58,000 loan appeared on his credit report, damaging his credit rating and preventing him from getting a mortgage to buy a house.

Then he and his father were hit with a lawsuit from an entity they had never heard of – National Collegiate Student Loan Trust – which claimed to own his unpaid loan. In court, the trust argued that Kennedy and his father had deposited $ 30,000 in loan proceeds at a bank in Birmingham, Alabama.

But as the Kennedys showed in court, neither Jesse nor his father had such an account, and after filing documents accusing fraud, the trust dropped the lawsuit. The Kennedys strike back at the trust for violating federal fair credit reporting law.

The case highlights another frustrating aspect of student loans for many borrowers. As the Kennedy dispute unfolded, it was unclear who actually owned the alleged loan at issue.

This is a common problem for many borrowers due to the Byzantine complexity of the industry.

Loan documents can be named after a bank, but the loan can be insured by the federal government, with the bank simply acting as the issuer. Or the loan could indeed belong to that bank with no connection to the federal government. In other cases, the loan may bear the name of a bank but belong to a third party to which the bank has assigned the loan. If that sounds like the kind of financial instrument that helped fuel the mortgage meltdown, that’s because it is.

Like the financial industry, which bundled mortgages together and sold them like bonds, banks and other financial interests also packaged private student loans and sold them to investors. This has been a lucrative subset of the industry for the companies doing the bundling, one of which created the trust that Jesse Kennedy pursued.

Practices such as those encountered by Kennedy caused problems for NCOs with federal and state authorities.

Since 2004, NCO and its subsidiaries have paid approximately $ 6.9 million in penalties and settlements after being accused of improper debt collection practices, records show. In 2013, the company – then known as Expert Global Solutions – paid the the biggest fine ever by the FTC in a debt collection case: $ 3.2 million.

The FTC complaint accused the company of repeatedly using “false, deceptive or deceptive” tactics to try to collect loans, including calling loan holders several times a day, calling them at work. and calling their bosses.

In a statement released after the fine was imposed, the company said it had cooperated with the FTC’s investigation and “already implemented systems and procedures to help resolve their issues.”

The company continues to interest investors. Its owner, One Equity Partners, sold half of the company’s interest to two other private equity firms in 2014. Later that year, all of its collection business, including student loans, went into effect. been sold to another private equity firm in Beverly Hills, California. Earlier this month, Expert Global Solutions was acquired by Alorica, a customer service company based in Irvine, California.



Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/how-a-small-business-became-the-debt-collection-wal-mart/feed/ 0
Admissibility of an acknowledgment of debt “without prejudice” in the courtroom during a dispute – Finance and Banking https://www.soc-usa.org/admissibility-of-an-acknowledgment-of-debt-without-prejudice-in-the-courtroom-during-a-dispute-finance-and-banking/ https://www.soc-usa.org/admissibility-of-an-acknowledgment-of-debt-without-prejudice-in-the-courtroom-during-a-dispute-finance-and-banking/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 04:37:20 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/admissibility-of-an-acknowledgment-of-debt-without-prejudice-in-the-courtroom-during-a-dispute-finance-and-banking/ South Africa: Admissibility of an IOU “without prejudice” in a courtroom during litigation January 31, 2020 Vasco de Oliveira Inc. To print this article, simply register or connect to Mondaq.com. It is common for a debtor (defendant) to submit correspondence to their creditor (plaintiff) and mark it as “without prejudice”, in which the debtor acknowledges […]]]>


South Africa: Admissibility of an IOU “without prejudice” in a courtroom during litigation

To print this article, simply register or connect to Mondaq.com.

It is common for a debtor (defendant) to submit correspondence to their creditor (plaintiff) and mark it as “without prejudice”, in which the debtor acknowledges its debt to the creditor and further offers a settlement offer to the creditor.

Although not stipulated in any specific law, it is general practice in South African law that correspondence “without prejudice” made by one party to another for the purpose of negotiating the settlement of a dispute or a debt is inadmissible in a courtroom and therefore a party to the proceedings cannot use this correspondence as evidence. Our courts have, however, recognized limited exceptional circumstances in which the courts may without prejudice to allow correspondence or statements made during settlement negotiations to be admissible as evidence – these include acts of insolvency, limited cases of estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation and threats. .

The SCA in KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) (1135/2016) [2017] ZASCA 98 3 All 739 SCA; 2017 (6) SA (July 6, 2017), introduced statute of limitations as an additional limited exceptional circumstance under which it would be acceptable for the Court to allow without prejudice that negotiations be admitted as evidence in a courtroom. The SCA stated the following:
“When an acknowledgment of debt is made by a debtor to a creditor, even in the context of settlement negotiations without prejudice, the acknowledgment may be admitted in evidence for the sole purpose of interrupting the course of limitation within the meaning of article 14 of the statute of limitations. 68 of 1969. “

Article 14, paragraph 1, of Law 68 of 1969 on the limitation period provides that the execution of the limitation period is interrupted by an express or tacit acknowledgment of the debtor. Article 14 (2) provides that if the execution of the limitation period is interrupted in accordance with paragraph (1), the limitation period continues to run from the day on which the interruption occurs.

The SCA in KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments stated that “the rationale behind Section 14 of the Prescription Act is that where there is an acknowledgment of liability there is no uncertainty on the part of of the debtor as to the existence of the debt. “The Court further referred to statements made by other judges in the following cases:

  • In Murray & Roberts Construction (Cape) (Pty) Ltd v Upington Municipality 1984 (A), Grosskopf AJA stated that “When the debtor removes the uncertainty by admitting his liability, the course of the limitation period is” suitably adapted “.
  • In the Foreign Law Case Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid [2006] UKHL 37; [2006] 4 All ER 705, Lord Walker said that “it is in the public interest that a debtor who acknowledges his debt, ‘and thus induces his creditor not to immediately resort to litigation’, cannot claim that the debt has prescribed because ‘the creditor held his hand ‘.

The SCA therefore decided that “When acknowledgments of liability are made in such a way that, under Article 14 of the Limitation Act, they interrupt the course of limitation, such acknowledgments should be admissible, even if they are made without prejudice to the period. settlement negotiations, but only for the purpose of interrupting the limitation period. The exception itself is not absolute and will depend on the facts of each case. And nothing prevents the parties from expressly or implicitly excluding it in their discussions. and the protection of a creditor. Admission remains protected insofar as it proves the existence and amount of the claim concerned.

The above judgment expressly indicates that, without prejudice, acknowledgments of liability are admissible for the sole purpose of interrupting the limitation period. The effect of such a decision would inherently render the remaining content of the letter or correspondence inadmissible in court, such as the acknowledgment of the amount of the debt. The Court specifies, however, that the exception is not absolute and will depend on the facts of each case. The question that remains is, what are these facts that can modify this exception?

The general practice of “without prejudice” correspondence for the purpose of settlement negotiations appears to be, to a large extent, abused by debtors in South Africa. Often, debtors attempt to protect themselves from the rule without prejudice by submitting settlement proposals to their creditors with the awkward intention of evading litigation and with no intention of discharging the debt in question. This is a question which must be dealt with by the South African courts. In my opinion, the aforementioned rule set out by the SCA in KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments should be extended: when a debtor acknowledges responsibility for a debt during settlement negotiations and enters into a settlement agreement with its creditor, whether verbal or written, and if said debtor violates the settlement agreement, the debtor’s acknowledgment of debt (including the entire agreement) should be admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. A debtor should not be allowed to hide behind the rule without prejudice to the detriment of his creditor simply because the creditor has placed his trust in the hands of that debtor and granted him an indulgence for the payment of the debt.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: South African Finance and Banking

Practical approach to debt collection

AAA rooms

To maintain and develop a functioning economy, investors often need loans which are made available by commercial banks and other financial institutions using the funds of their depositors on a collateral provided for the repayment of these loans by the borrowing investors.

Nigeria Money Lender License

Lawyers in Famsville

Financial institutions, banks and microfinance banks are evolving to meet these needs and demands for loans.



Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/admissibility-of-an-acknowledgment-of-debt-without-prejudice-in-the-courtroom-during-a-dispute-finance-and-banking/feed/ 0
“Default” payments under the Settlement Agreement and not “Operational Debt” under the IBC: NCLT [Read Order] https://www.soc-usa.org/default-payments-under-the-settlement-agreement-and-not-operational-debt-under-the-ibc-nclt-read-order/ https://www.soc-usa.org/default-payments-under-the-settlement-agreement-and-not-operational-debt-under-the-ibc-nclt-read-order/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 04:37:20 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/default-payments-under-the-settlement-agreement-and-not-operational-debt-under-the-ibc-nclt-read-order/ Is the “default” of payments under a settlement agreement an “operational debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 (“the Code”)? This question was answered in the negative by the National Company Law Tribunal of New Delhi in its judgment of 22.07.2020 rendered in the case “Brand Realty Services Limited vs Sir John Bakeries […]]]>


Is the “default” of payments under a settlement agreement an “operational debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 (“the Code”)? This question was answered in the negative by the National Company Law Tribunal of New Delhi in its judgment of 22.07.2020 rendered in the case “Brand Realty Services Limited vs Sir John Bakeries India Private Limited, …

Whether the “Default” of payments under a settlement agreement is an “operating debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the code“)? This question was answered in the negative by the National Company Law Tribunal of New Delhi in its judgment of 22.07.2020 rendered in the case of “Brand Realty Services Limited v Sir John Bakeries India Private Limited, (IB) 1677 / ND / 2019”.

The plaintiff in the above-mentioned case had filed an application under section 9 of the Code against Sir John Bakeries Private Limited (“the debtor company“) requesting the initiation of the insolvency resolution process of the business of the debtor business. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the debtor business had violated the terms of the settlement of account agreement dated of 15.06.2018 and had not made the payments agreed under the said settlement of account agreement As such, there was a “Default” in the payment of the Operational Debt.

In addition to denying having executed the Settlement Agreement dated June 15, 2019 and alleging that the relationship between the debtor Company and the Applicant had already been entered under another Settlement Letter dated of 19.12.2017, it was, among others, argued by the Respondent that the default in payment under the Settlement Agreement was not an operating debt within the meaning of the definition of “operating debt” under subsection (21) of the Article 5 of the Code.

Based on a joint reading of the definitions of “debt” under subsection 3 (11), “default” under subsection 3 (12) and “operating debt” under subsection 5 (21 ) of the Code, the respondent argued that the definition of debt as defined in the Code does not mean only operating debt, but rather includes financial debt as well as liability or obligation under debt owed by any person and default means non-payment of the debt, but in order to trigger Article 9 of the Code, an operational creditor is required to establish a default for non-payment of the operational debt as defined in subsection (21) of section 5 of the Code. We relied on the judgment of the Honorable National Company Law Tribunal, the Allahabad Judiciary in Company Petition (IB) No. 343 / ALD / 2018 in Delhi Control Devices Limited v Fedders Electric and Engineering Limited “

While relying on the aforementioned decision of the NCLT, Allahabad Bench, the National Company Law Tribunal of New Delhi held that “the default of the settlement agreement does not fall within the definition of debt. operational ”and, therefore, the application under section 9 of the Code was rejected.

The Respondent was represented by Mr. Nishant Awana, Founding Partner, NMA Law Chambers.

Click here to download the order

[Read Order]



Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/default-payments-under-the-settlement-agreement-and-not-operational-debt-under-the-ibc-nclt-read-order/feed/ 0
Dangers of Aging Debt: Be Careful When Contacted About Old Overdue Bills https://www.soc-usa.org/dangers-of-aging-debt-be-careful-when-contacted-about-old-overdue-bills/ https://www.soc-usa.org/dangers-of-aging-debt-be-careful-when-contacted-about-old-overdue-bills/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 04:37:20 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/dangers-of-aging-debt-be-careful-when-contacted-about-old-overdue-bills/ February 6, 2012 ?? – The Federal Trade Commission has just cracked down on debt collector Asset Acceptance LLC for misrepresenting itself in trying to collect old debts. But this story is much bigger than a single company. There is a whole industry called the debt buying industry that you might not know about. It […]]]>

February 6, 2012 ?? – The Federal Trade Commission has just cracked down on debt collector Asset Acceptance LLC for misrepresenting itself in trying to collect old debts. But this story is much bigger than a single company. There is a whole industry called the debt buying industry that you might not know about. It sounds strange, but your old unpaid debts have value and can be sold to other businesses. These companies buy back your old debt for a fraction of what you owe in the hope that they can get the full amount back from you and make a big profit. An old debt like this is nicknamed “zombie debt” because it never seems to die.

Here’s the tricky part: All states have statutes of limitations on how long you can be sued to collect a debt. And after seven years, the unpaid debts usually disappear from your credit report and are no longer held against you. The FTC accused Asset Acceptance of suggesting to debtors that it could sue them for debts that have exceeded the statute of limitations. They can’t do that unless you don’t let them. Asset Acceptance had to pay fines in a $ 2.5 million settlement and now has to disclose that it cannot sue for old debts that have passed the legal deadline. But the company said the settlement does not represent the admission of the FTC’s claims.

This is where “debt re-aging” comes in. Some consumers, on principle, will agree to make a payment on an old debt, not knowing that depending on where they live, this can reset the statute of limitations, giving the debt collector a new opening to sue. in court against them. The other way this can happen is when a collection company re-reports an old debt that has fallen off your credit report to the credit bureaus, so the seven-year period begins again.

As of this writing, it sounds so confusing, but here’s the bottom line: You are still responsible for debts beyond the statute of limitations. But if you are in dire financial straits, you should do your homework before you start paying it off, as you might be forced to pay off all of the debt when you aren’t able to. Worse yet, you could end up in court, where a debt collector could possibly garnish your paycheck or put a lien on your house to collect.

Your choices, as a consumer facing a claim for an old debt, sometimes referred to as a “prescribed debt”, have so many “ifs” and “butes” that I’m going to do something unusual and cut and paste the FTC clean advice brochure here, so I don’t spoil the explanation. First of all, here is the entire FTC brochure to consult. And below are the most important parts:

Federal Trade Commission Notice on Prescribed or Old Debt:

“The statute of limitations varies from state to state and for different types of debt. It is also tricky because under certain circumstances the clock can be reset and the period can be restarted to zero. That’s why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the national consumer protection agency, says it’s important to understand your rights if a debt collector contacts you about an old debt.

When is an old debt too old for a collector to pursue?

Generally, state law determines the length of the limitation period. Usually the countdown starts when you don’t make payment; when it stops depends on two things: the type of debt and the law that applies either in the state where you live or in the state specified in your credit agreement. For example, the statute of limitations for credit card debt in a few states can be up to 10 years, but most states impose a period of three to six years. To determine the statute of limitations for different types of debt under each state’s law, check with a legal aid lawyer, another lawyer or your State Attorney General’s Office.

What should I do if a debt collector calls for a prescribed debt?

Collectors are permitted to contact you regarding prescribed debts. They might tell you that the debt is time-barred and that they can’t sue you if you don’t pay.

If a collector doesn’t tell you that a particular debt is time-barred – but you think it might be – ask the collector if the debt is over the statute of limitations. If the collector answers your question, the law requires their answer to be truthful. However, some collectors may refuse to answer. Another question to ask a collector if you think a debt may be time-barred is when your last payment was made. This is important because it helps determine when the statute of limitations begins to run. If a collector doesn’t give you this information, send them a letter within 30 days of receiving written notice of the debt. Explain that you are “disputing” the debt and want to “verify” it. The more information you give the collector about why you are disputing the debt, the better. Collectors should stop trying to collect until they give you a verification. Keep a copy of your letter and the verification you receive.

Do I have to pay a debt that is considered time-barred?

The decision to pay a prescribed debt is yours. You have options, but each has consequences. For example, if you pay off the debt and how much you pay, it will affect your credit rating. Consider speaking with a lawyer before choosing an option.

Don’t pay anything on the debt. Although the collector cannot sue you to collect the debt, you still owe it. The collector may continue to contact you to try to recover, unless you send a letter to the collector demanding that the communication stop. Not paying off debt can make it harder or more expensive to get credit, insurance, or other services, because not paying can lower your credit rating.

Make a partial payment on the debt. In some states, if you pay an amount on a prescribed debt or even promise to pay, the debt is “rekindled.” This means the clock is resetting and a new limitation period begins. It also often means that the collector can sue you to collect the full amount of the debt, which can include interest and additional charges.

Pay off the debt. Even if the collector cannot sue you, you can choose to pay off the debt. Some collectors may be willing to accept less than the amount you owe to pay off the debt, either in one large payment or in a series of small payments. Make sure you get a signed form or letter from the collector before making any payment. This document must indicate that the entire debt is in the process of being settled and that the amount owing will release you from any further obligation. Without this document, the amount paid can be treated as a partial payment on the debt, instead of a full payment. Keep a record of the payments you make to repay the debt.

The FTC brochure then explains what to do if you are sued for a prescribed debt, but hopefully you take the above steps and never let it come to that. Other useful links for FTC consumer education are: • Debt Collection FAQs: A Guide for Consumers • Dealing with Debt Collectors (video)

Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/dangers-of-aging-debt-be-careful-when-contacted-about-old-overdue-bills/feed/ 0
$ 66 million settlement ends debt collectors https://www.soc-usa.org/66-million-settlement-ends-debt-collectors/ https://www.soc-usa.org/66-million-settlement-ends-debt-collectors/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 04:37:20 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/66-million-settlement-ends-debt-collectors/ BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) – The New York State Attorney General has announced a $ 60 million settlement that will shut down a Buffalo-based debt collection company. Three debt collection companies in total make up the $ 66 million settlement. Douglas MacKinnon, who owns Northern Resolution Group and Enhanced Acquisitions, will have to pay back millions […]]]>

BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) – The New York State Attorney General has announced a $ 60 million settlement that will shut down a Buffalo-based debt collection company. Three debt collection companies in total make up the $ 66 million settlement.

Douglas MacKinnon, who owns Northern Resolution Group and Enhanced Acquisitions, will have to pay back millions of dollars in damages and penalties. Delray Capital, a Toronto-based company owned by Mark Gray, was fined $ 6 million, but was suspended from $ 10,000 for “inability to pay.”

“This was an elaborate and unscrupulous scam ploy,” Attorney General Letitia James said.

According to Attorney General James, debt collection companies added $ 200 to debts purchased and placed for collection. Collectors then asked consumers to pay thousands of dollars that they didn’t legally owe. The settlement also alleges that collectors told consumers they would be arrested for check fraud. Collectors would spoof calls and make it look like government agencies were calling consumers.

“There is no tolerance for individuals who use illegal and unreasonable tactics to deceive consumers about their hard-earned money,” Attorney General Letitia James said. “Not only did the defendants force consumers to pay more than they owed, they falsely threatened to arrest consumers for not complying with these predatory practices. This regulation demonstrates our commitment to protect consumers and I thank the CFPB for its partnership to put an end to this exploitation scheme.

The regulations prohibit MacKinnon, Gray and their businesses from engaging in debt collection.

MacKinnon lawyer Dennis Vacco released this statement:

Our clients have entered into a Stipulation accepting the entry of a $ 60 million judgment. The $ 60 million represents the total amount of damages the government is claiming in the litigation. Once the court accepts the Stipulation and delivers the judgment, the government will have to initiate a separate process to enforce the judgment.

Mr. MacKinnon wanted to put this case behind him and avoid the ongoing costs of litigation and allow him to turn to other business interests. He was not required to pay any money at that time in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation.

Joseph Makowski, an attorney for Gray, said his client had “no admission of liability”, was “satisfied with the settlement” and “looks forward to continuing with his family.”

Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/66-million-settlement-ends-debt-collectors/feed/ 0
Who Should Pay the Petition Fee After Petition Debt Settlement? https://www.soc-usa.org/who-should-pay-the-petition-fee-after-petition-debt-settlement/ https://www.soc-usa.org/who-should-pay-the-petition-fee-after-petition-debt-settlement/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 04:37:20 +0000 https://www.soc-usa.org/who-should-pay-the-petition-fee-after-petition-debt-settlement/ Reliance Wholesale Ltd v AM2PM Feltham Ltd [2019] In the recent Reliance Wholesale Ltd v AM2PM Feltham Ltd case, the High Court provided much-needed guidance and clarification on how the Court should approach cost issues when a petition claim is rejected following full payment made by the debtor company, even when such payment is made […]]]>


Reliance Wholesale Ltd v AM2PM Feltham Ltd [2019]

In the recent Reliance Wholesale Ltd v AM2PM Feltham Ltd case, the High Court provided much-needed guidance and clarification on how the Court should approach cost issues

when a petition claim is rejected following full payment made by the debtor company, even when such payment is made “under protest” without acknowledgment of liability for the petition claim.

Background

Reliance Wholesale Ltd (“the Applicant”) brought a petition for liquidation against AM2PM Feltham Ltd (“the Company”) claiming that the Company had failed to repay a loan of approximately £ 39,000.

Subsequently, on December 3, 2018, the Company agreed to pay the deemed debt described in the liquidation petition. However, the company made it clear that it was making the payment “under protest” as it totally disagreed that the petition debt was ever due and payable.

After the necessary payment was made, the parties agreed by consent that the liquidation petition should be dismissed and on December 5, 2018, Insolvency and Corporate Court Chief Justice Briggs dismissed the petition, not anticipating no provision for the costs of the request. It follows, of course, that each party bears its own costs.

The Chief Registrar, with few documents at his disposal, found that it was difficult for him to decide the issue of costs and therefore decided that the fairest way to resolve this issue was to order that each party bear its costs. own costs.

This decision gave rise to an appeal by the petitioner who argued that the Chief Registrar should have ordered that the company pay the costs of the petition.

What did the Court decide?

The judgment of Justice Morgan, sitting in the Chancellery Division of the High Court, is clear that the Court had some sympathy as to why the Chief Registrar ordered each party to bear their own costs of the petition. .

However, Justice Morgan summed up the position by explaining that “it seems to me that the decision of the Registrar did not amount to a truly judicial decision on the point on which there was a dispute and on which there were arguments. from either side “. (see [27] judgment).

Because the Court of Appeal had evidence that the lower court had not seen, it was in a better position to make a decision as to the correct approach to take.

The case law on this specific point seems to indicate that if the petition debt was paid before the petition hearing, it was normally fair to infer that the payment indicated that the money was due after all and therefore that the costs of the petition were due. petitioner should be paid by the debtor.

However, in the present case, such a deduction could not be drawn because the company paid the petition debt “under reserve” and reserved the right to request collection of the petition debt from the petitioner. through a separate procedure.

The Court could not therefore be satisfied that the Company had admitted that it owed the sums indicated in the application. The case was therefore based on the Court’s assessment, on the elements submitted to it, as to whether there was a good faith dispute for substantial reasons linked to the claim in the application.

Morgan J accepted that there was at least some basis for accepting the company’s account as to payment, but significantly only up to an amount of around £ 33,000. However, the Company was unable to explain the balance of some £ 6,000 which was owed to it. As a result, the Court could not see how the Company could have a good faith defense on substantial grounds of £ 6,000.

The petitioner was entitled to bring his claim against the company on the basis of the remaining balance of £ 6,000 and therefore had the company not paid £ 6,000 by 3 December 2018 the petitioner could have continued the petition . The petition was therefore justified.

Although the petition was dismissed, it was done because the full amount of the petition debt had been paid before the hearing. The Court was therefore entitled to make the usual order that the Company should pay the costs of the Applicant’s petition.

Summary

This case is useful in that it clarifies the approach to be taken and the correct principles to be followed when a court considers the order for costs to be made when a winding-up motion has been dismissed by consent following payment in full. claim debt.

It is also helpful in that it explains how the payment of the petition debt “under reserve” impacts the court’s approach to making the costs order correct.

Further, as long as the Court is satisfied that the debtor company does not have a bona fide substantive cause dispute as to the enforceability of the petition debt, then even if the petition debt is paid ” subject ”, the usual order as to costs will follow.



Source link

]]>
https://www.soc-usa.org/who-should-pay-the-petition-fee-after-petition-debt-settlement/feed/ 0