Markets Wired - Page 1128 of 1419 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC Returns Nearly $108 Million to 450,000 Homeowners Overcharged by Countrywide for Loan Servicing Fees

The Federal Trade Commission is mailing 450,177 refund checks worth almost $108 million to homeowners who were allegedly overcharged by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. As part of the FTC’s efforts to protect financially distressed homeowners, the FTC reached a settlement with Countrywide last year over allegations that the company collected excessive fees from borrowers who were struggling to keep their homes.

“It’s astonishing that a single company could be responsible for overcharging more than 450,000 homeowners,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “Countrywide’s unconscionable behavior harmed American consumers on a massive scale and we are proud to be getting every single dollar back to hundreds of thousands of struggling consumers who can least afford to lose the money.”

The FTC’s June 2010 settlement order required Countrywide, which is now owned by Bank of America, to pay $108 million to be used for refunds and barred the company from taking advantage of borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments. The refunds are being distributed to consumers whose loans were serviced by Countrywide between January 1, 2005, and July 1, 2008, and who were subject to the company’s allegedly unlawful practices.

According to the FTC, homeowners who were in default on their loans were charged excessive fees for services such as property inspections, lawn mowing, and other services meant to protect the lender’s interest in the property. Rather than simply hire third-party vendors to perform the services, Countrywide used subsidiaries to hire the vendors. The subsidiaries allegedly marked up the price of the services charged by the vendors – often by 100 percent or more – and Countrywide then charged the homeowners the marked-up fees. The FTC complaint alleges that the company’s strategy was to increase profits from default-related service fees in bad economic times.

Also, in servicing loans for borrowers trying to save their homes in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the FTC alleged that Countrywide made false or unsupported claims to borrowers about amounts owed or the status of their loans, and added fees and escrow charges to their mortgage accounts without notice.

An administrator working for the FTC will send out refunds to consumers who were overcharged for property inspections, maintenance services, title searches, and foreclosure trustee services, and to those who were in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and were charged fees or escrow charges without being notified.

Consumers who receive the checks should cash them by September 19, 2011. The amount of each check will vary from less than $500 to as much as several thousand dollars. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed. Former Countrywide customers with questions should call the redress administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC at 1-888-230-3196 or visit the FTC’s Countrywide settlement webpage.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call
1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

FTC Issues Final Policy Statement on Collecting Debts of the Deceased

The Federal Trade Commission has finalized a policy statement clarifying that the agency will not take enforcement action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or the FTC Act against companies that are attempting to collect the debts of deceased consumers, if the companies communicate with someone who is authorized to pay debts from the estate of the deceased. The policy statement also emphasizes that debt collectors may not mislead relatives to believe that they are personally liable for a deceased consumer’s debts, or use other deceptive or abusive tactics.

Family members typically are not obligated to pay the debts of a deceased relative from their own assets. The FDCPA limits whom debt collectors may contact after a loved one has died to people such as the deceased person’s spouse and the executor or administrator of the deceased person’s estate. Since the FDCPA was enacted in 1977, state probate laws have changed, and now, less formal procedures often govern the appointment or selection of those who are responsible for the disposition of the estate. In many instances, there may be no formal executor or administrator of an estate. In the enforcement policy statement issued today, the Commission seeks to reconcile the FDCPA’s requirements with current trends in state probate law.

In keeping with the FTC’s October 2010 proposed policy statement, the final policy statement specifies that the agency will not take law enforcement action under the FDCPA if a debt collector communicates about a deceased person’s debts with that person’s spouse, the executor or administrator of the deceased person’s estate, or anyone else who is authorized to pay the debts from assets in the estate. The final policy statement also:

describes how debt collectors may communicate with family members and others to locate someone who is authorized to pay the deceased person’s debts from the estate, and specifies that collectors may not mislead individuals into believing that they have the authority to pay the decedent’s debts when they do not.
specifies that, in seeking to locate someone who is authorized to pay the deceased person’s debts from the estate, collectors may not reveal or refer to the debts, but may say they wish to discuss payment of the deceased person’s bills.
states that in keeping with the FDCPA’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive collection practices, debt collectors may not contact family members and others at unusual or inconvenient times or places.
emphasizes that, in communicating with someone who is authorized to pay the debts from assets of the deceased person’s estate, collectors must avoid creating the misleading impression that the individual is personally liable or could be required to pay using his or her own assets, or assets held jointly with the deceased person.

The FTC has information for consumers about what to do when a loved one dies and debt collectors are calling. To learn more see: Paying the Debts of a Deceased Relative: Who Is Responsible?

The final policy statement will be published in the Federal Register. An enforcement policy statement describes the Commission’s future enforcement plans, goals, and objectives with respect to a particular industry or practice. Enforcement policy statements do not have the force or effect of law, but they may reflect the Commission’s interpretation of a legal requirement. The FTC vote approving the final policy statement was 5-0.

Commissioner Julie Brill issued a concurring statement that urged close monitoring and aggressive enforcement to assure that the expanded contact with bereaved families authorized by the policy does not result in abuse by the debt collection industry. “A consumer in this vulnerable condition may mistakenly identify himself as the person with whom the debt collector should be speaking,” she wrote.

(FTC File No. P104806; the staff contact is Christopher Koegel, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2761.)

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Issues Report: “Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act”

The Federal Trade Commission today issued a staff report, that compiles and updates the agency’s guidance on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the 1970 law designed to protect the privacy of credit report information and ensure that the information supplied by credit reporting agencies is as accurate as possible. A credit report contains information about a consumer’s personal and credit characteristics, character, and general reputation and is used to make credit, employment, insurance and other decisions.

The new staff report, entitled “Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff Report and Summary of Interpretations,” provides a brief overview of the FTC’s role in enforcing and interpreting the FCRA and includes a section-by-section summary of the agency’s interpretations of the Act.

The FTC is also withdrawing the agency’s 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, which has become partially obsolete since it was issued 21 years ago. The 1990 Commentary was comprised of a series of FTC statements about how it would enforce the various provisions of the FCRA. Since 1990, the FRCA has been updated several times, most significantly by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, known as the FACT Act. Both updates expanded the provisions of the FCRA.

The new staff report deletes several FTC interpretations in the 1990 Commentary that have since been repealed, amended, or have become obsolete or outdated. It also modifies some interpretations in the 1990 Commentary, and adds several interpretations reflecting changes that Congress has made to the FCRA over the years, rules issued by the FTC and other agencies under the FACT Act, statements in numerous staff opinion letters, and the staff’s experience from significant enforcement actions.

Recent legislation has transferred the authority to issue interpretive guidance under the FCRA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Withdrawing the 1990 Commentary now will ensure that this obsolete document does not transfer to the CFPB.

The Commission vote approving the staff report on the FCRA and withdrawing the 1990 Commentary was 5-0. The report and Federal Register notice can be found on the FTC’s website and as links to this press release. More information for consumers about the FRCA can be found here.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

(FTC File No. P024808)

FTC Settlement Requires Internet Marketer to Stop Selling Cosmetic Contact Lenses without Prescriptions

The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with an Internet marketer and his company that will put a stop to their alleged illegal practice of selling cosmetic contact lenses to consumers without prescriptions.

The settlement with Scott Smiledge-Ferragamo and Jokeshop USA, LLC is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to help protect consumers from the health risks posed by improperly used contact lenses, through its enforcement of the FTC’s Contact Lens Rule. The Rule requires sellers to verify that a consumer has a valid prescription for all contact lenses, including cosmetic lenses that do not correct vision. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the improper use of contact lenses, whether they are corrective or not, can cause corneal ulcers, corneal abrasions, vision impairment, and blindness. The settlement with the Jokeshop defendants is the FTC’s seventh enforcement action since it issued the Contact Lens Rule in 2004.

Smiledge-Ferragamo sold cosmetic contact lenses through his Massachusetts-based company, Jokeshop, and the website www.vampfangs.com. The FTC charged that Smiledge-Ferragamo and Jokeshop violated federal law by selling contact lenses without getting consumers’ contact lens prescriptions or verifying their prescriptions directly with the prescribers, and by failing to keep adequate records.

The settlement order also prohibits the defendants from selling contact lenses without obtaining or verifying prescriptions directly from the prescribers, from failing to maintain records of prescriptions and verifications, and from violating the Contact Lens Rule. The settlement requires the defendants to pay $50,000 in cash plus the proceeds from the sale of a 2009 Mercedes. The rest of the $200,000 judgment against the defendants will be suspended because of their inability to pay. If it is determined that the financial information the defendants gave the FTC was untruthful, the full amount of the judgment will become due. The settlement also contains various record keeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants’ compliance.

The FTC’s guidance to sellers on their obligations under the Contact Lens Rule includes “The Contact Lens Rule: A Guide for Prescribers and Sellers,” and “Complying with the Contact Lens Rule .” Consumers can learn more about cosmetic contact lenses in “Avoiding an Eyesore: What to Know Before You Buy Cosmetic Contacts ,” and about their rights under federal law in “The Eyes Have It – Get Your Prescription .”

The U.S. Department of Justice filed these documents on the FTC’s behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 12, 2011. The Commission vote to refer the complaint and settlement order to the DOJ for filing was 5-0.

NOTE: The Commission refers a complaint to the DOJ for filing when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. A consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. A consent decree is subject to court approval and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

(Jokeshop NR)
(FTC File No. 102-3009)

Administrative Law Judge Concludes That North Carolina Dental Board Illegally Blocked Non-Dentists from Providing Teeth Whitening Services

In an Initial Decision announced today, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell has concluded that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners violated the law by trying to block non-dentists in the state from providing teeth-whitening goods or services.

Ruling that the Dental Board does not have the authority to order non-dentists to discontinue providing teeth whitening goods or services, Chappell issued an Order in connection with the Decision barring the Board from engaging in the same anticompetitive conduct in the future. The Order also requires the Board to send follow-up letters to non-dentists whom it had previously warned would or might be violating state law by providing teeth-whitening services.

The Dental Board is a state agency created to regulate the practice of dentistry in North Carolina. It consists of eight members, including six licensed dentists. Any person who wants to practice dentistry in the state must be licensed by the Dental Board. The Dental Board also may ask a state court to determine that particular conduct constitutes the unauthorized practice of dentistry and issue an injunction.

The administrative complaint issued in June 2010 included proposed relief intended to stop the Dental Board’s allegedly illegal conduct, to ensure that North Carolina consumers benefit from competition between dentists and non-dentists for teeth-whitening services. The complaint alleged that the Dental Board’s actions reduced the availability of teeth-whitening services in North Carolina, and that the Dental Board’s conduct constituted an anticompetitive conspiracy among the dentists on the Dental Board, in violation of federal law.

In North Carolina, teeth whitening services provided by non-dentists often are available at salons, retail stores, and mall kiosks. The state’s dentists offer whitening services in their offices, and also provide take-home kits. According to the June 2010 complaint, the Dental Board sent 42 letters instructing non-dentist teeth-whitening providers that they were practicing dentistry illegally, and ordering them to stop. In at least six cases, the complaint alleged, the Dental Board threatened or discouraged non-dentists who were considering opening teeth-whitening businesses. The complaint also alleged that the Dental Board sent at least 11 letters to third-parties – mall owners and property management companies – stating that teeth-whitening services offered in malls are illegal.

The complaint also challenged the Dental Board’s claim that its conduct is protected from federal antitrust scrutiny by the state action doctrine, which exempts some conduct by boards from antitrust oversight if it is actively supervised by the state. In February 2011, the FTC denied a Dental Board motion to dismiss the complaint on these grounds.

The Initial Decision. Chappell determined that complaint counsel “has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that dentist members of the Dental Board had a common scheme or design, and hence an agreement, to exclude non-dentists from the market for teeth whitening services and to deter potential providers of teeth whitening services from entering the market.”

The Administrative Law Judge wrote that non-dentists compete with dentists to provide teeth-whitening services in North Carolina, and that the Dental Board’s “concerted action to exclude non-dentist-provided teeth whitening services from the market constitutes an agreement to exclude rivals, which by its nature has the tendency to harm competition.”

Chappell found that the Dental Board’s action had no valid pro-competitive justification, and “constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade and an unfair method of competition, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.”

Chappell wrote that because the Commission had already determined that the conduct of the Dental Board was not shielded from federal antitrust scrutiny by the state action doctrine, he was not required to conduct a further analysis of the issue.

Based on these and other findings, the ALJ issued an Order requiring the Dental Board to “cease and desist” from engaging in the anticompetitive conduct alleged in the complaint, including, for example:

directing non-dentist providers of teeth whitening goods or services to stop providing these goods or services;
prohibiting, restricting, impeding, or discouraging the provision of such goods or services by non-dentists;
telling non-dentist providers, or prospective providers, that they are violating or will violate North Carolina’s Dental Practice Act by providing such goods or services;
communicating to a lessor of commercial property or any other third party (such as a mall owner where a teeth whitening kiosk is located) that the provision of such goods or services by a non-dentist violates the Dental Practice Act; and
inducing or encouraging anyone, or attempting to induce or encourage anyone, to engage in any of the defined anticompetitive conduct.

Chappell also ordered the Dental Board, within 30 days from the date the Order becomes final, to send a copy of the Order and the Complaint to each of its members. Within 30 days from the date the Order becomes final, the Dental Board must also send a letter to each of the people or businesses, that it had warned not to provide teeth whitening goods or services, stating that “the Board does not have the authority to order you to discontinue providing Teeth Whitening Goods or Teeth Whitening Services,” and that “only a court may determine that you are violating, or have violated, any law.”

The Appeals Process. The Judge’s Initial Decision is subject to review by the full Federal Trade Commission on its own motion, or at the request of any party. The Initial Decision will become the decision of the Commission 30 days after it is served upon the parties, unless a party files a timely notice of appeal – and thereafter files a timely appeal brief – or the Commission places the case on its own docket for review or stays the effective date of the decision.

Copies of the public version of the Initial Decision by the Administrative Law Judge are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

(FTC Docket No. 9343)

FTC Issues New Rule Strengthening Consumer Protections Against Deceptive Mortgage Advertisements

A new Federal Trade Commission Rule will strengthen consumer protections by banning deceptive claims about consumer mortgages in advertising or other types of commercial communications. The Rule is designed to create a level playing field for legitimate businesses to compete in the marketplace.

Congress directed the FTC to initiate a rulemaking proceeding on mortgage loans in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, as clarified by the Credit Card Act of 2009. As a first step, on June 1, 2009, the FTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on whether certain mortgage acts and practices were unfair or deceptive. In September 2010, the agency issued a proposed Rule that would ban deceptive mortgage advertising practices and sought further public comment about its costs and benefits, including whether any alternatives would adequately protect consumers at a lower cost. The FTC received and reviewed the public comments, most of which supported the Commission’s proposed action.

The Final Rule is substantially the same as the proposed Rule. It applies to all entities within the FTC’s jurisdiction that advertise mortgages – mortgage lenders, brokers, and servicers; real estate agents and brokers; advertising agencies; home builders; lead generators; rate aggregators; and others. The Rule, however, does not cover banks, thrifts, federal credit unions, and other entities that are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The new Rule lists 19 examples of prohibited deceptive claims, including misrepresentations about:

the existence, nature, or amount of fees or costs to the consumer associated with the mortgage;
the terms, amounts, payments, or other requirements relating to taxes or insurance associated with the mortgage;
the variability of interest, payments, or other terms of the mortgage;
the type of mortgage offered;
the source of an advertisement or other commercial communication; and
the consumer’s ability or likelihood of obtaining a refinancing or modification of a mortgage or any of its terms.

Section 5 of the FTC Act generally prohibits advertisers from making false or misleading claims. The Rule parallels this legal principle and will allow the FTC to seek appropriate relief (including civil penalties) against those who engage in deceptive mortgage advertising. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and state law enforcement authorities also may bring actions to enforce the Rule. On July 21, 2011, the Commission’s rulemaking authority for the Rule transfers to the CFPB, but the FTC, the CFPB, and the states all will have authority to enforce the Rule.

The FTC vote to issue the new Rule was 5-0, with Commissioner Edith Ramirez, Chairman Jon Leibowitz, and Commissioner Julie Brill issuing a joint concurring statement to underscore the importance of ensuring that “communications about mortgages to consumers whose native language is not English” are truthful and understandable; Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch issued a separate statement in response.

The new Rule is being published in the Federal Register, and is available now on the FTC’s website. The Rule will take effect on August 19, 2011.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

(FTC File No. R011013)
(Final Rule Mortgage Ads)

FTC Halts Timeshare Property Resale Scam; Telemarketers Falsely Claimed They Had Buyers Lined Up, Agency Alleges

At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a federal court has temporarily halted a telemarketing operation that targeted consumers trying to sell their timeshare properties. The defendants allegedly charged consumers thousands of dollars, falsely claiming they had buyers lined up for sales that supposedly would be reviewed and approved by the FTC. As part of its continuing crackdown on con artists who prey upon financially distressed consumers, the FTC seeks to permanently end the defendants’ deceptive practices and make them refund consumers’ money.

According to court papers filed by the FTC, the Orlando, Florida-based defendants, who operated out of mail drop addresses in places such as Las Vegas, Boston, and Orlando, contacted consumers trying to sell their timeshare properties and told them they had buyers for their properties. In order for the sale to proceed, the defendants charged consumers up to $3,150 – either as an “earnest money deposit” to commit them to the sale, or for sale-related expenses – which, consumers were told, would be refunded when the sale closed. The defendants instructed consumers to pay by cashier’s check or money order sent by overnight delivery, and to immediately sign and return a “sales agreement” or “seller’s document” that would be mailed to them. Telemarketers who spoke with consumers often represented that the property sale would be reviewed and approved by the FTC.

The FTC’s complaint alleged that the “sales agreement” was merely a marketing contract for advertising the property, not a sales contract. Consumers who signed the contract and sent their payment to the defendants often were not contacted again, and consumers’ properties were never sold. Consumers who called the defendants were given the run-around, and refund demands were routinely ignored or denied. Contrary to the defendants’ alleged assertions, the FTC does not review or approve timeshare sales.

The FTC charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting that they had buyers willing to pay a specific price for consumers’ timeshare properties, that they would refund their fee when the property was sold, and that the FTC would review and approve proposed sales.

The court froze the defendants’ assets and appointed a receiver to take control of the businesses. The defendants are National Solutions LLC, also doing business as Blue Scape Timeshares International, Country Wide Timeshares, Countrywide Timesharesales MA, Landmark Timeshares, Propertys Direct, Quicksale Propertys, Sun Property Networks, Sun Property’s, Universal Propertys, and VIM Timeshares; Landmark Marketing LLC, also doing business as Blue Scape Timeshares, Country Wide Timeshares International, Propertys DRK, Quick Sale Advisers, Quick Sale International, and Universal Propertys International; Red Solutions LLC, also doing business as City Resorts and Resort Advisors; Enterprise America, LLC, also doing business as American Timeshares, Exit Week, and Resort Advisors International; Investments Group of Florida, LLC, also doing business as Resort Advisors AM; Multiglobe LLC, also doing business as Universal Propertys; Leandro Velazquez; Samuel Velazquez; Joel Velazquez; Kiomary Cruz; Edgar Gonzalez; Vicente Virgilio; and Aaron Weiss.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division.

To learn how to avoid pitfalls when selling a timeshare unit, read the FTC’s Selling a Timeshare Through a Reseller: Contract Caveats.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

(National Solutions)
(FTC File No. 1123040)

FTC Will Not Enforce Provisions of MARS Rule Against Real Estate Professionals Helping Consumers Obtain Short Sales

The Federal Trade Commission today issued a statement announcing that it will forbear from enforcing most provisions of its Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule against real estate brokers and their agents who assist financially distressed consumers in obtaining short sales from their lenders or servicers.

As a result of the stay on enforcement, these real estate professionals will not have to make several disclosures required by the Rule that, in the context of assisting with short sales, could be misleading or confuse consumers. As more and more American homeowners seek short sales, it is especially important that the Rule not inadvertently discourage real estate professionals from helping consumers with these types of transactions.

The MARS Rule was issued pursuant to authority granted by Congress in 2009. The issuance of the Rule followed numerous FTC and state enforcement actions against companies that claimed to be able to obtain from consumers’ mortgage lenders or servicers a loan modification or other relief to avoid foreclosure. The Rule covers companies or individuals, among others, who assist consumers in obtaining approval of a short sale from their lender or servicer.

A short sale occurs when a home is sold for an amount less than the balance owed on the mortgage loan, and the lender or servicer agrees to accept the proceeds of the sale instead of pursuing foreclosure. Short sales can benefit consumers by allowing them to escape from a mortgage that they cannot afford, while avoiding foreclosure. Many real estate professionals assist distressed homeowners by providing both traditional services associated with selling their homes (e.g., listing the property) and working to seek lender or servicer approval of a short sale.

The MARS Rule requires companies offering mortgage assistance relief services to disclose certain information to consumers about the services they provide, bans collection of advance fees, and prohibits false or misleading claims. After the Rule went into effect, a number of real estate professionals who help consumers with short sales raised concerns about complying with the Rule. These professionals pointed out that some of the required disclosures could confuse consumers or could be inaccurate in this context.

At this time, the Commission has announced that it will not enforce most of the provisions of the MARS Rule against real estate professionals who are engaged in obtaining short sales for consumers. The stay applies only to real estate professionals who: 1) are licensed and in good standing under state licensing requirements; 2) comply with state laws governing the practices of real estate professionals; and 3) assist or attempt to assist consumers in obtaining short sales in the course of securing the sales of their homes. The stay exempts real estate professionals who meet these requirements from the obligation to make disclosures and from the ban on collecting advance fees. These professionals, however, remain subject to the Rule’s ban on misrepresentations.

The Commission stated that the stay does not apply to real estate professionals who provide other types of mortgage assistance relief, such as loan modifications. In addition, the FTC will continue to enforce the Rule and Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices, against all other providers of mortgage assistance relief services.

The Commission vote approving the MARS Rule enforcement policy was 5-0. It can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. More information about the Rule can be found here, and information about consumers’ mortgage rights can be found here.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

(FTC File No. R911003)

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Irving Oil’s Acquisition of ExxonMobil Assets in Maine Was Anticompetitive; FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges of Anticompetitive Conduct Against Southwest Health Alliances, Inc.

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Irving Oil’s Acquisition of ExxonMobil Assets in Maine Was Anticompetitive

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission approved a final order settling charges that Irving Oil’s acquisition of Exxon-Mobil’s diesel and gasoline related assets in Maine was anticompetitive and would have led to higher prices for consumers. The transaction raised competitive concerns in markets for gasoline and distillates terminaling services in the South Portland and Bangor/Penobscot Bay areas. The order settling the FTC’s complaint requires Irving to relinquish the rights to purchase the terminal and pipeline assets in Maine that it acquired from ExxonMobil, except for the right to purchase a 50 percent interest in ExxonMobil’s South Portland terminal.

The Commission vote approving the final order was 5-0. It can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 101-0021; the staff contact is Robert Friedman, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3316; see press release dated May 26, 2011)

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges of Anticompetitive Conduct Against Southwest Health Alliances, Inc.

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission approved a final order settling charges that Southwest Health Alliances, Inc., d/b/a BSA Provider Network, an association representing 900 physicians in Amarillo, Texas, violated federal law since at least 2000 by fixing the prices its member doctors would charge insurers. The agency alleged this led to higher prices for consumers and employers. The FTC order settling the charges prohibits Southwest Health from similar conduct in the future. The association also settled similar charges brought by the Office of the Texas Attorney General.

The Commission vote approving the final order was 5-0. It can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 091-0013; the staff contact is John P. Wiegand, FTC Western Region, San Francisco, 415-848-5174; see press release dated May 10, 2011)

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

FTC Seeks Public Comments on Dow Chemical Company’s Application to Approve Amendments to Asset Purchase Agreement with Arkema Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on an application by The Dow Chemical Company for approval of amendments to an asset purchase agreement executed on July 31, 2009, between Dow and Arkema Inc. The application is required by the FTC’s final 2009 order regarding Dow’s acquisition of Rohm & Haas, which requires Dow to obtain FTC approval of any modifications to contracts and other agreements related to divestitures required by the order.

Under the order, Dow was required to sell its property in Torrance, California, that includes a latex polymer plant, to Arkema. Dow now proposes to amend the Torrance Facility asset purchase agreement to change the scope of the facility’s rail-offloading project to better conform to Arkema’s procedure for loading and unloading railcars. According to Dow’s application, the changes will not materially affect operations at the Torrance Facility.

The FTC is seeking public comments on the application for 30 days, until August 15, 2011. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580, or can be submitted electronically here. (FTC File No. 081-0214, Docket No. C-4243; the staff contact is Roberta Baruch, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2861; see press release dated January 23, 2009.)

(FYI 32.5.2011.wpd)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: