Sate of Mimecete sie 33228/KRJ JUL 06 2015 wees 134,000 STATE OF MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCE In the Matter of the Collection Agency CONSENT ORDER License of Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated License Number: 40275211 TO: Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated 1702 N. Collins Blvd. Suite 100 Richardson, TX 75080 Commissioner of Commerce Mike Rothman (‘Commissioner’) has advised Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated, a commercial collection agency, (‘Respondent’) that he is prepared to commence formal action pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 46. 027 (2014), and other applicable statutes, against Respondent's Collection Agency License, which has been in effect since January 5, 2012, based on the following allegations: ‘A. Respondent wrote a collection manual and trained its collectors to engage in certain acts which violate the Truth In Caller ID Act. The intent of this Federal Law, in part, is to “Prohibit any person or entity from transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller 1D information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.” By the methods listed below the Respondent caused harm to consumers and wrongfully obtained value by coercing payments from debtors. This law was violated no less than 148 times and demonstrates a corporate culture of untrustworthiness and incompetence in violation of Minn. Stat. § 45.027 Subd. 7 (a) (4) (2044). Examples include:Spoofing the phone number of a debtor's son on their caller ID instead of the collection agency's number in Texas, ‘Spoofing the phone number of a debtor's mother on their caller ID instead of the collection agencies number in Texas. Spoofing the phone number of the debtor's girlfriend so the debtor saw that on their caller ID instead of the collection agencies number in Texas. Spoofing the phone number of a debtor’s neighbor so the debtor saw that on their caller ID instead of the collection agencies number in Texas. Spoofing the phone number of the local city hall in the city that the debior is a volunteer fire fighter so the debtor saw that on their caller ID instead of the collection agencies number in Texas. Spoofing the phone number of the local farmer’s market when the debtor was a local farmer so the debtor saw that on their caller ID instead of the collection agencies number in Texas, Spoofing the phone number of the local livestock auction so the debtor, who is a farmer, saw that on their caller ID instead of the collection agencies number in Texas. Spoofing local telephone numbers so the debtor saw a local number on their caller ID instead of the collection agencies number in Texas, Spoofing local hotel numbers so the debtor thought the caller was from a nearby hotel instead of from the collection agencies number in Texas. . Respondent wrote a collection manual and trained its collectors to lie to the debtors about private investigations into the assets of the debtor's businesses. Intheir collection manual and training the collectors were instructed that if a debtor was not cooperating in the paying of their debt they were to threatened that a private investigator was going to be assigned to “conduct an audit and investigation’ into their company. This training is in violation of Minn. Stat. § 45.027 Subd. 7 (a) (4) (2014) by training it's collectors to be deceptive and dishonest. Respondent instructed their collectors to use fake names so the debtors would not recognize them from their previous collection contacts. The Respondent instructed their collectors in their collection manual to spoof phone calls from local numbers so the debtors would believe the “investigator” was close to their place of business. Local hotel numbers were frequently used. The combination of being trained to use fake names and using false locations to give the impression the call is being made locally is to give the impression that a licensed investigator was contacting them. This tactic was used no less than 49 times. These acts are intimidation tactics in violation of Minn, Stat. § 332.37 (7) (2014). Respondent trained their collectors to conduct a “DTO Talk Off. DTO is short for Detective Talk Off. In this "Talk Off the collector informed the debtor their “Pl Name* and ‘PI Firm”. *PI’ is private investigator and private investigative firm. They state they will take pictures of the facility, run the vehicle identification numbers on all vehicles in the parking lot and do an inventory on all machinery, equipment and supplies. They further state that as employees leave the building they will be interviewed about which banks hold lines of credit, checking or savings accounts for the debtor. If this first call does not get the debtor to pay they will contact the debtor’s business. The collection manual of the respondentstates “DTO Question when speaking with a low level employee” There are 15 questions asked which include this sample (exact quotes from the Respondent's Collection Manual): ‘* Can you spell the owners complete name? + Can you spell his or hers spouse full name and her contact information? © Can you tell the office manager’s name or who carries the keys? * Do you have a back entrance or exit? * Ate your payroll checks clearing? + Have you heard if your company is currently filing for bankruptcy or going out of business? Aiter the fake investigation is completed the collectors are instructed to do a “DTO Follow Up”. This call states that they have received the results of the investigation. The collector says in this call that "He has found sufficient assets and bank information to be able to tie into the lawsuit. This information has been provided to our client and they have asked that we post a bond with the courthouse to freeze your assets until this matter goes to trial.” In reviewing one years’ worth of collector notes from Minnesota accounts there is no evidence that any investigator was ever hired in Minnesota to conduct these investigations. There is no evidence that the collectors working for the Respondent ever went to Minnesota, that the collectors conducting these investigations were licensed to conduct these investigations, that creditors were provided any information obtained in these investigations or that a creditor requested the Respondent to freeze any assets. Nor was there any evidence in the record that.a bond wasposted with any courthouse by the Respondent to freeze any assets. Minn. Stat. $326.32 to §326.339 (2014), in part, regulates private detectives. In order to do work as an investigator as defined by Minn, Stat. §326.338 (2044) each individual must be licensed. In order to get a license one of the requirements is that the applicants have a minimum of 6,000 hours of investigative experience. Neither the Respondent nor any of its employees hold a license to conduct investigations in Minnesota. This law was violated a minimum of 49 times. Collectors documented the effectiveness of these actions by getting uncooperative debtors to pay their bills in full immediately after a DTO series was completed. By failing to license their agency as a private detective firm, by failing to license their collectors as detectives, by training and allowing their collectors to act as unlicensed private detectives they violated Minn, Stat. 326 and thus violated Minn. Stat. § 45.027 Subd. 7 (a) (4) (2014) and Minn. Stat. § 332.37 (3) (2014). . Respondent wrote in their collection manual and trained its collectors to conduct “DIG" emails and phone calls. These emails and phone calls were directed to businesses in the area that may or may not have a business relationship with the debtor. They asked questions about the debtor's business, their relationship with the debtor's business and if they were owed any money by the debtor. As the majority of the debtors in this investigation were smail town businesses, it was fairly easy to find similar businesses or vendors of the-debtor. For instance, in several cases the debtors were farmers and Tucker Albin called local greenhouses and livestock auction houses.These phone calls and emails are Intended to harass and intimidate. They have no ‘other business purpose. These actions are untrustworthy, in violation of Minn. Stat. 45,027 Subd. 7 (a) (4) (2014). No less than 25 DIG calls or emails were conducted over a 12 month period by the collectors for the Respondent. In one case, a Minnesota debtor was upset at the DIG calls and the collector documented that they told the Minnesota debtor “they will continue to get calls from the mean ole nasty collector men.” Respondent wrote a collector manual and trained their collectors in multiple ways that threatened actions they could not take or would not take on individual debtors in violation of Minn. Stat. §45.027 Subd. 7 (a) (4) (2014). They include: + Repeatedly threatening in messages and in conversations with debtors that if a debt was not paid at various times like “tomorrow, by 3:00 PM today, in 48 hours” that a suit would be filed and yet suits were not filed. ‘+ Threatening to “freeze debtor assets.” + Threatened debtors who were commercial drivers that they were going to contact the Minnesota Department of Transportation and have the debtor's DOT authorizations revoked + Threatened debtors to have an Internal Revenue Service form 1099 issued to them for unpaid debt even though when asked for a list of 1099's issued none have ever been and their lawyer acknowledged they did not have the authority to do so. ‘+ Threatens a small town debtor that the collector “knows they are well known in town".* Collector contacted the Minnesota State Veterinary Board of a debtor on a commercial debt on a business unrelated to their veterinary business to report the debtor for not paying their bills. * Threatened a debtor that they will be reported for theft of commercial trailers over an unpaid trailer lease. * Threatened a debtor that if they did not pay, Respondent would pay local people to stand out in front of their business and another related business with signs that they were not paying their debts. In all there are no less than 56 instances where the collectors threatened actions that were intended to harass, intimidate, coerce and threaten debtors into paying debts. Minn. Stat. §45.027 (a) (4) (2014), Minn. Stat. § 332.37 (2)(3)(7(9) and (14) were violated a total of no less than 56 individual and distinct times, . Respondent's collection manual trained collectors to threaten actions that they either could not legally do or would not actually do and used these as threats and intimidation. In doing so, Respondent violated Minn. Stat. §45.027 (a) (4) (2014), Minn. Stat. § 332.37 (2)(3)(7)(9) and (14). Examples of violations listed in the Collection Manual and used by collectors are (exact quotes): ‘© file district/small claims lawsuit + public record halting lines of credit with current and future vendors © 1099 filed with IRS for unreported and undeclared income «request license suspended and force all current operations ceased ‘request all insurance policies suspended ‘file for conversion of produet/mjust enrichment‘© post surety bond w/courts and request bank account(s) frozen. ‘identify if any other businesses owned by same party and request investigation for commingling of corporate assets * request IRS investigate for potential commingling of personal and business assets + pay local people to stand in stret of front of building with signs of non payment # request a full sheriff sale of all items with no levy/UCC filing + notify surety company of false applications of payment (ex...Ipaid all suppliers/sub) + notify city and county of insolvency and pull all enrrent permits © pursue personal assets — 401K, IRA, savings, checking, stocks, bonds or annuities «seize property, vehicles, watererafts or aircrafts ‘* request suspension and permanent removal ftom DOD (Department of Defense) contracts + remove fiom future bids through GSA schedule ‘+ notify your insurance provider and bonding company of insolvency and they may cancel your insurance or raise your premiums + file application for removal of companies provider #s with Medicare/Medicaid «schedule an onside audit of the product by a private investigator + not only have you not paid for the product, but you have failed to honor the tax responsibility that goes with the purchase. We will file with the tax office to protect to our client’s interest + Let them know hired to exeeute on judgment |. Respondent allowed an unregistered debt collector to repeatedly contact Minnesota debtors, in violation of Minn. Stat. §332.33 Subd, Sa (2014).Respondent acknowledges that it has been advised of its rights to a hearing in this matter, to present argument to the Commissioner and to appeal from any adverse determination at a hearing, and Respondent hereby expressly waives those tights. Respondent further acknowledges that it has been represented by legal counsel throughout these proceedings. Respondent has agreed to informal disposition of this matter without a hearing as provided under Minn, Stat. § 14.59 (2014) (2014). The following Order is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subd. 7 (2014), that Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated, shall cease and desist from further violations of Minn. Stat. Chapters 332 and 45 (2014). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall cease and desist any further violations of Minn. Stat. Chapter 326 (2014) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall retrain all of their collectors, managers and owners to prevent further violations which are listed in this order and provide written proof to the Department that this training is completed within 60 (sixty) days of the signing of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker,’ Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall Implement a compliance training and monitoring program that includes a root cause analysis to prevent these violations in the future and quarterly reporting must be made to upper management of Tucker Albin and Associates, Incorporated. The quarterly reports shall be provided to the Department during the one year period after the signing of this order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall review and rewrite all collector training manuals, collector instructions, collection letters, collection emails and all other communications with debtors to comply with state and federal laws within 60 (sixty) days of the signing of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall provide quarterly reports to the Department outlining all complaints involving Minnesota debtors or Minnesota creditors they receive and their responses/resolutions for one year from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall pay all related investigative costs to the State of Minnesota as required by Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subdivision 1 (8) (2014) including the ongoing costs to review and respond to the aforementioned quarterly reports. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker Albin and Associates, Incorporated agrees to pay for any and all audit expenses including travel costs for any onsite audits deemed necessary by the Department over the next two years. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall pay a civil penalty of $500,000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that $250,000 of that civil penalty shall be stayed for two years. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that if this order is violated the entire stayed civil penalty of $250,000 shall be reinstated and due in full immediately. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall pay $130,000 of the civil penalty at the time this order is signed.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated shall pay $10,000 of the civil penalty each month for the next twelve (12) months from the date of this order. This Order shall be effective upon signature by or on behalf of the Commissioner. Dated: _ “77 7- 20/5 MIKE ROTHMAN Commissioner py LEAP MARTIN FLEISCHHACKER: Acting Assistant Commissioner - Enforcement Minnesota Department of Commerce 85 7" Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN 55101 651.539.1640CONSENT TO ENTRY OF ORDER The undersigned states that he has read the foregoing Consent Order that he knows. and fully understands its contents and effect; that he has been advised of Respondents rights to a hearing in this matter, to present argument to the Commissioner and to appeal from any adverse determination at a hearing, and on behalf of Respondent hereby waives those rights. Respondent further acknowledges that it has been represented by legal counsel throughout ‘these proceedings, or has been advised of its right to be represented by legal counsel, wiich right he hereby waives; and that Respondent consents to entry of this Order by the Commissioner. It is further understood that this Consent Order constitutes the entire settlement agreement between the parties, there being no other promises or agreements, either express or implied. STATE OF_Teyes county or ___ Dallas Signed or attested before me on & fai / 204 (date) By, Ad hea (name(s) of person(s)). Notary Public Slate of Texas My Commission gises-— May 10,2648 ——} ——————— 2) JARED A. KENOYER Signature of notary officer) ¢ (Title) and rank My Commission expires: May 14, 2018ae Sue of Mice Dept. ef Gomemaree JUL 06 2015 33228/KRJ 7 wees 150,000 STATE OF MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCE GUZ In the Matter of the Collection Agency CONSENT ORDER License of Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated License Number: 40275211 TO: . Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated 1702 N. Collins Blvd. Suite 100 Richardson, TX 75080 Commissioner of Commerce Mike Rothman (‘Commissioner’), has advised Tucker, Albin and Associates, Incorporated, a commercial collection agency, (‘Respondent’) that he is prepared to commence formal action pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 45.027 (2014), and other applicable statutes, against Respondent's Collection Agency License, which has been in effect since January 5, 2012, based on the following allegations: Pay 10 THe ° (ORDER OF oa tr Soe ES aaron ame ELBA ANGLE TOE 2G 20mO00% bir WAR AOKB 790; 940093 22490