Spencer Fane LLP Logo
Latest Posts

A federal district court in California denies class certification to a nationwide putative TCPA class of consumers against a debt collector who allegedly made more than 500 million prohibited calls

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued an order denying class certification to a nationwide putative class of consumers against The CBE Group, Inc. (“CBE”), which alleged that CBE made over 500 million calls to these consumers’ cell phones without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”).  Blair, et al. v. The CBE Group, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00134-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal. August 26, 2015).

The Sixth Circuit sheds light on meaning of “prior express consent” under the TCPA in a case involving hundreds of calls to a debtor’s cellphone by a creditor using an autodialer

One thing that telemarketers and other companies that communicate with their customers by calling their customer’s cellphones crave is clarity under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.  The Sixth Circuit recently shed some light on the meaning of “prior express consent” under the TCPA in connection with calls by a creditor to its debtor’s cellphone in the case of Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 14-4168 (6th Cir. August 21, 2015).

The Eleventh Circuit rules that Capital One is not a debt collector under the FDCPA with respect to defaulted credit card debt it acquired from HSBC

In the case of Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 14-14200 (August 21, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit had occasion to decide whether a bank that collects on defaulted debt it acquired from another bank is a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Conflict Mineral Reporting Requirement Still Illegal

On August 18, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld its prior order striking a portion of the SEC’s conflict mineral rule.

Manufacturer’s Corner: The Danger of Conditioning Your Sale on the Buyer’s Acceptance of Your Terms

If you review the terms and conditions given by many manufacturers in their invoices (including, probably, yours), you likely will find a provision that says something to the effect of “we agree to sell you this product if, and only if, you agree to each of these terms and conditions.”  It’s a common term, and there’s a good reason for it: it can counteract standard form language in the buyer’s purchase order that you don’t like.

Using Alack’s “Magic Word” in Exculpatory Contract Provisions

There is almost never such a thing as a magic word anymore.  In medieval England, people would recite things three times to get magical protection (“third time’s the charm”).  Similarly, in the earliest days of the law, parties would write contracts “under seal” that protected them, regardless of whether the contract was otherwise valid.  That is what a magic word does; it protects you just by being there.  Today, the law hates magic words; courts constantly dig into the hidden meaning behind material terms and the intent and understanding of the parties who use them.  Because there is almost never such a thing as a magic word these days, when one does occur business owners would do well to take note.

Supreme Court Upholds Limit On Royalties To Life Of Patent, But Other Strategies Exist To Extend Life Of Compensation

A patent issued under the U.S. Patent Laws has a finite life, which is 20 years from the date of filing.  A strategy to monetize a patent through licensing must take into consideration that finite life span because after the 20 year patent term, the underlying invention falls into the public domain.  A patent holder may not continue to receive license royalties after the patent’s expiration, as long ago decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29 (1964).

Manufacturer’s Corner: Breach of Warranty Claims and CGL Coverage

A court recently held that a CGL insurer owed a duty to defend its insured accused of breaching express and implied warranties.

Manufacturer’s Corner: Manufacturer Gets Second Chance Following Unsuccessful Litigation With Supplier

This is a story about a U.S. manufacturer who got into a dispute with its Chinese supplier. 

Western District of Missouri Bankruptcy Court Finds No FDCPA Violation for Proof of Claim Filed on Time-Barred Debt

Recently, several courts across the country have considered whether filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the statute of limitations violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The increased attention on this issue was sparked by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit held that filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations violates the FDCPA. After the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, many other courts have decided the issue, and the results of these cases have been mixed. Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri weighed in, and it found that there was no violation of the FDCPA. Dunaway v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 14-04132-drd, Adv. No. 14-4132, Doc. 29 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. May 19, 2015).

1 3 4 5 6 7 11 Showing 41-50 of 107 results View All