Debt Collection Outsourcing India

Debt Collection Outsourcing India

India has attracted many technology jobs in recent years from Western nations, particularly the United States. Now, it is on its way to becoming a hub in another offshore outsourcing area – debt collection. According to the industry report, units of General Electric, Citigroup, HSBC Holdings and American Express have used their India-based staff to pursue credit card debt and mortgage payment by calling defaulters. US debt collection agencies are the newest to start outsourcing their work to India and are satisfied with the results produced by the polite but persistent Indian experts. After insurance claims and credit card sales, debt collection is a growing business for outsourcing companies at a time of downturn in the US economy when consumers struggle to pay for their purchases. Debt collection is a vital and growing component of US economy. There is more than $2.5 trillion in outstanding consumer debt. As a result, the third-party collection industry makes more than one billion contacts with consumers each year. Recently this year, more than $39.3 billion in debt was returned to creditors. Indians have the advantage of lower salaries and other expenses, which cut drastically costs of collecting debts. Debt collectors in India cost as little as one-quarter the price of their US and European counterparts and are often better at the job. Many such Indian firms run 24-hour services. Indian debt-collection companies comply with strict regulations on operations in the American and / or European markets.

LPO Regulatory Trends in 2011

LPO Regulatory Trends in 2011

As legal outsourcing (LPO) industry hitting double-digit growth rates, regulators & representative bodies can no longer ignore this dynamic new market. In the main LPO markets the United States, United Kingdom & India there is the potential for rule changes which could place outsourcing agreements under increased scrutiny or even have a material impact on the ability of law firms & companies to send legal work to outside providers. The regulation is going to be the single most important issue in LPO this year.    it is not expected that there will be any revolutionary changes however it is intended to regulate the legal outsourcing industry in more effective.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has set up a working group to examine the implications of advancing know-how & globalisation for the legal industry that is the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20.  The group has released proposed changes to the ABA model rules & has invited feedback from industry participants. The changes, which include a provision that the law firm outsourcing legal work ought to make definite it is in the best interest of clients, won’t cause a major shift in the regulatory regime. The ABA is due to submit its recommendations to the House of Delegates in August this year. Independent from the ABA, a Connecticut lawmaker recently proposed a bill aimed at curtailing offshore legal outsourcing. While the bill is not expected to go anywhere, it sets off another round of debate regarding the unauthorized practice of law.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has been slower to answer the burgeoning LPO industry in the United Kingdom, however, it’s indicated that it is likely to over out a thematic review on the subject in 2011. The SRA will study if there need to modify regulatory requirements or increase its supervision of LPO arrangements. The body is already thinking about LPO as part of its consultation in the new Solicitors Handbook. The Law Society, which has delegated regulation to the SRA but which still represents the legal industry, has also hinted that it will address LPO in 2011. The Law Society intend to examine the impact of LPO on, in particular, the development of junior solicitors as more of their work is sent abroad, & the risks for firms in terms of professional indemnity insurance.

India where most outsourced legal work is carried out also has of the most intractable regulatory regimes. Among the recent developments is the Chennai Writ Petition, a legal action brought by local practitioners against 31 international law firms & LPO provider aimed at stopping foreign firms from practicing in India.  It is definite that Indian government is unlikely to permit anything which might damage the growing local LPO market. However, the LPO industry ought to keep an eye on the Ministry of Law & Justice designs to tighten overall regulation of the corporate legal sector. This will probably move slowly but is a fascinating statement of intent which could help to clarify the boundaries between the regulated legal sector & legal technique outsourcers & make definite that the LPO industry does not get embroiled again in the foreign lawyer controversy in India.

Bankruptcy Petition filing steps

Bankruptcy Petition filing steps

Take a file folder and put a statement from every creditor that you owe in it. In case you do not receive a every month statement from the creditor, put the following information on a sheet of paper and put it in your file:

• Name and complete mailing address of who you owe;
• Your account number (if applicable);
• The name of who owes the debt (husband, spouse or both);
• The total amount you owe this creditor;
• How much your every month payments are;
• The date you originally went in to debt with this creditor if you do not remember the exact date, an approximate year i.e., 2001, 2002, 2003, etc. will do;
• If the debt is for a credit card, record the last date you charged on this credit card. In case you charged less than 90 days ago, you need to write down the amount you charged and the reason for the acquisition.)
• In the same file folder, also put in the following documents:

 Your current pay check stubs :

• In case you are unemployed, include copies of documents showing any income you receive(d) from unemployment, workers compensation, infant support, SSI, social security, retirement, estate, etc.
• Mortgage and deed in case you own or are purchasing a home or other actual property (i.e., land, apartment complex, etc.).
• Copies of your automobile, boat, motorbike, mobile home or other titles to motor vehicles.
• Copies of your tax returns.
• Copies of any court proceedings filed against you.

Title Search Property Due Diligence Outsourcing India

Title Search Property Due Diligence Outsourcing India

A title search is the resulting document of ownership or lien research of a real estate. A researcher will retrieve the records on a property, such as transfers, liens, judgments, and other recorded data. All the results will be compiled into a report, called a title search and report can be used to understand the status of the property, such as if there are liens against the property, or ownership status.   The search report will have title search abstract, not just a property deed. A full property title searches  include : Mortgages, Property liens, Tax liens, Contractor liens, Tax certificates, Legal and vesting document.

Many of our clients are investors, looking at properties for purchase. The prospective buyers wish to determine the status of any liens that may be on the property and understand the ownership of a property before they make an offer on it to the seller or broker. Sometimes, knowing the amount of mortgages on a property, or if there are financial problems can help with the negotiations. The title searches may indicate comparable sales data, to see what other properties in the area have sold for. In addition, some clients may require a title search as part of a family event, such as divorce, estate or otherwise. Many homeowners are now checking their own homes title status on a regular basis, to make sure no liens are attaching to the property. A lien search for the property is most important for title search, and it should list all liens recorded against the current owner of the property. This includes both mortgage liens, and all non-voluntary liens such as tax liens, contractor liens, etc.   The title searches take between one to four days (Not including weekends).

U.S. Rules and Regulations Applicable to Outsourcing

U.S. Rules and Regulations Applicable to Outsourcing

Many functions within the relationship of a corporation and outsourcing firm fall directly or indirectly under the governance of U.S. laws. For example, several of the largest U.S. banks outsource their IT systems, data processing, financial research, data storage, or customer transactions to U.S. and foreign-based BPOs. In doing so, some of the rules and guidelines applicable to financial outsourcing include NASD NTM 05-48, The Federal Privacy Rule and the Safe Guards Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and outsourcing rules defined by Federal Financial Examinations Council (FFIEC).

When U.S. public companies outsource accounts receivable, accounts payable, or fixed-asset accounting to a BPO, compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley is still required as compliance is non-delegable. By extension of the outsourcing relationship, both the public company and the BPO work within the governance and compliance of these regulatory requirements.  Also, when U.S. healthcare and insurance companies outsource medical records, claims processing, and patient billing information, patient information is protected under the parameters of the HIPAA Privacy Rule even if the patient information is maintained by an offshore BPO.

Rules of Legal Outsourcing (LPO)

Law firms and corporate legal departments typically employ some form of outsourcing within their functions. Services which are not typically considered the practice of law, i.e. document review, litigation support, eDiscovery, etc., are, technically, outsourcing relationships when they are performed by an outside party. The current rules applicable to legal outsourcing were defined by ABA Formal Opinion 08-451. The guidelines include the allowance of non-lawyers to perform certain types of legal work, provided non-lawyers are not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and they are supervised by lawyers. When an eDiscovery provider is retained by a firm or in-house counsel, there are no restrictions on who may or may not perform culling, searching, and hosting of privileged documents. When paper documents are converted to electronic files by a litigation support company, confidentiality and security requirements exist for personnel handling the documents and the physical dwelling in which the documents are stored. When a non-lawyer in the U.S. or abroad is utilized to review documents for law firm retained by a client, there are no licensing requirements preventing the individual from doing so provided the non-lawyer, again, is working under the supervision of a lawyer. Overall, the combination of the Rules of Professional Conduct sworn to by counsel, counsel’s oversight of its legal outsourcing providers, and the compliance of ABA Opinion 08-451 by legal outsourcing providers appears to be cohesive and effective. Similar to U.S. privacy and confidentiality rules which extend to BPO practices, uniform standards and guidelines should continue to apply to legal outsourcing whether the work is performed in New York or New Delhi. Industry-wide compliance of confidentiality, security, prevention of conflicts, and avoiding the unauthorized practice of law will further substantiate the role of legal outsourcing and eliminate apprehension in its adoption as a standard practice for corporations and law firms. A Fortune 500 company or AmLaw 200 firm seeking to gain value through process improvements and cost reductions from legal outsourcing should be able to so; provided such work is done under their supervision and within the parameters of ABA Formal Opinion 08-451 or similar guidelines.

E - Discovery Right to all Information restricted

E - Discovery Right to all Information restricted

In a recent decision in Carolina Bedding Direct, LLC v. Downen, United States Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson shed light on the limitations placed on discovery by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the circumstances under which a requesting party will be denied wholesale access to a responding party’s computer, cell phone, and email account. The decision also reinforces that courts are unlikely to question a responding party’s certification of compliance with discovery requests absent a real showing of improper conduct, even if it is shown that the responding party failed to produce its own email and text messages that were later produced by another party.