U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–915 PDF 2011

ARBITRATION OR ARBITRARY: THE MISUSE OF

MANDATORY ARBITRATION TO COLLECT CONSUMER DEBTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 22, 2009

Serial No. 111–125

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

——— ———

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

——— ———

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

DIANE E. WATSON, California

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DAN BURTON, Indiana

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

JARON R. BOURKE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 22, 2009 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Swanson, Lori, attorney general, State of Minnesota; Michael Kelly, chief

operating officer, National Arbitration Forum; Richard Naimark, senior

vice president, International Centre for Dispute Resolution, American

Arbitration Association; F. Paul Bland, staff attorney, Public Justice;

and Christopher R. Drahozal, John M. Rounds professor of law, University of Kansas School of Law ....................................................................... 33

Bland, F. Paul ............................................................................................ 133

Drahozal, Christopher R. .......................................................................... 161

Kelly, Michael ............................................................................................ 116

Naimark, Richard ...................................................................................... 123

Swanson, Lori ............................................................................................ 33

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Bland, F. Paul, staff attorney, Public Justice, prepared statement of ......... 136

Drahozal, Christopher R., John M. Rounds professor of law, University

of Kansas School of Law, prepared statement of ....................................... 163

Kelly, Michael, chief operating officer, National Arbitration Forum, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 118

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

California Code of Civil Procedure ........................................................... 189

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Staff report ................................................................................................. 9

Naimark, Richard, senior vice president, International Centre for Dispute

Resolution, American Arbitration Association, prepared statement of .... 125

Swanson, Lori, attorney general, State of Minnesota, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 36

Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, article dated June 5, 2008 ..................................................... 23

(1)

ARBITRATION OR ARBITRARY: THE MISUSE

OF MANDATORY ARBITRATION TO COLLECT

CONSUMER DEBTS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kucinich, Cummings, Foster, Jordan,

Mica, Schock, and Watson.

Also present: Representative Johnson.

Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Claire Coleman,

counsel; Howard Schulman, Office of Representative Kucinich;

Jean Gosa, clerk; Charisma Williams, staff assistant; Leneal Scott,

information systems manager; Adam Hodge, deputy press secretary; Dan Blankenburg, minority director of outreach and senior

advisor; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison;

Daniel Epstein and Mitchell Kominsky, minority counsels; and

Katy Rother, minority staff assistant.

Mr. KUCINICH. The meeting will come to order.

Good afternoon and welcome. I am Congressman Dennis

Kucinich, chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the

Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I am joined today by the ranking member of the committee, Mr.

Jordan of Ohio.

Our hearing today is, ‘‘Arbitration or Arbitrary: The Misuse of

Mandatory Arbitration to Collect Consumer Debts.’’ The subject of

this hearing, the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitrations as a

method of obtaining judgments for consumer debts is not what we

normally think of when we hear the terms arbitration or consumer

arbitrations.

We are not talking about arbitrations brought by consumers

against businesses, and we are not talking about individual arbitrations brought by businesses against consumers. We are talking

about mass production arbitrations where businesses file thousands of claims against consumers to obtain judgments on credit

card debt where the claims are assigned to arbitrators in batches

of dozens, where the consumer almost never appears or even responds, and where the so-called hearing consists of nothing more

2

than the arbitrator looking at a statement written by the creditor

and awarding the amount that the creditor requests.

Over the past few months, the Domestic Policy Subcommittee

has conducted an investigation into the actual practices of the two

largest providers of consumer arbitration services, the National Arbitration Forum [NAF], and the American Arbitration Association,

the AAA. NAF is by far the No. 1 generator of arbitration awards

against credit card customers. The AAA also administered consumer debt collection arbitrations and states that they have

stopped doing this as of June 2009.

Subcommittee staff reviewed over 50,000 pages of documents, including hundreds of actual case files to determine how the claims

were decided by the arbitrators. Our investigators have come to

several deeply disturbing conclusions about the National Arbitration Forum’s arbitration system.

Who wins or loses an NAF arbitration seems to depend solely on

which arbitrator reviews the claim. As part of our review, subcommittee staff compared 228 nearly identical NAF consumer debt

collections claims and we found that three arbitrators granted

awards in favor of the debt collection firm nearly 100 percent of the

time, while two arbitrators reviewing otherwise identical claims

dismissed those claims nearly 100 percent of the time. Our review

of these files found absolutely no reason in the case files to explain

such inconsistent results.

We also found that some of NAF’s arbitrators either don’t know

the rules they are supposed to follow or they don’t follow them and

nobody at NAF seems to care. One NAF rule establishes a limit to

the amount of time between filing of the claim and service of notice

on the consumer debtor. Our investigation found that NAF does not

require its arbitrators to adhere to this rule. Out of a total of 172

consumer debt collection claims that could have been dismissed

under those rules, none were. What is more, NAF is also violating

a California law by refusing to publish the results of many of its

arbitrations with residents of that State.

Our investigation further revealed that this violation is allowing

at least one debt collection company to obtain awards of attorneys’

fees that exceed legal limits.

The subcommittee staff’s findings support a considerable body of

evidence showing NAF’s misuse of mandatory arbitration in debt

collection cases. Last week, the attorney general of the State of

Minnesota filed a lawsuit against the NAF alleging violations of

Minnesota’s consumer fraud statute and other claims based on

NAF’s concealment of its ties to creditors; its active solicitation of

creditors based on promises of providing leverage over consumers;

its direct financial affiliation with one of the country’s largest debt

collectors.

Remarkably, just this past Saturday the NAF agreed to a settlement with the Minnesota attorney general in which it would immediately stop all arbitration proceedings that are the subject of this

hearing. The settlement does not admit wrongdoing, however. NAF

still maintains that its arbitrations and arbitrators are fair and

independent. Our investigation strongly suggests otherwise, and we

will hear from the NAF, Public Justice, and from the attorney genVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 May 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\64915.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
3

eral of Minnesota herself, the Honorable Ms. Lori Swanson, on the

supposed neutrality of NAF arbitrations.

The hearing today will also address other systemic problems the

subcommittee investigation found with this arbitration system,

such as why the right to appeal a decision in consumer arbitration

claims is limited to a finding of fraud or corruption; the lack of

oversight of the claims process itself; and the bias built into arbitrations favoring the debt collection industry.

Now, defenders of this mass production arbitration system argue

that abolishing it will only raise the cost of litigating debt collection

cases. But consumers have rights and protections under the law

that are not honored in the arbitration setting. Furthermore, the

number of Americans who have experienced the suspension of their

rights due to consumer arbitration has grown as the number of

consumers with debt has exploded. Today, the average adult carries over $4,000 of debt. To the debt

collection industry and the alternative legal system that has been

created around it can no longer be ignored by the Federal Government. Others seem to agree with us. There are a number of bills

in Congress that would impose limits on the applicability of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements, including one introduced by our colleague, Representative Hank Johnson.

Very significantly, Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the

Financial Services Committee, has introduced a bill to establish a

new consumer protection agency which would have the power to

limit or ban mandatory pre-dispute consumer arbitration agreements, and the Federal Trade Commission is currently evaluating

the entire system of debt collection, including arbitration practices

with an eye toward the much-needed modernization of debt collection laws.

I hope this hearing will bring increased awareness to the problems of the mandatory consumer debt arbitration system; holds

those accountable that have abused consumers’ rights in the past;

and explore solutions to improve the system so it is no longer a

one-stop shop for debt collection agencies to obtain a binding legal

judgment against the consumer. Our citizens deserve nothing less.

At this time, prior to recognizing Mr. Jordan, I just want to observe the presence of our colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.

Thank you for being here. And our colleague from California, Ms.

Watson, thank you for being here.

And the Chair recognizes Mr. Jordan for his opening statement.

You may proceed.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

4

5

6

7

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The challenges consumers face in troubled economic times only

underscore the importance of this hearing. This particular hearing

provides an excellent opportunity to discuss and debate mandatory

arbitration clauses. This is an important matter and I look forward

to having a productive discussion on the many issues surrounding

consumer arbitration.

As we debate President Obama’s proposed consumer financial

protection agency, we must think hard about the way this new

agency would operate. Mr. Obama’s existing proposal is the latest

of the administration’s expanding its reach into the private sector.

I am particularly concerned that under the new agency, the administration would have the authority to eliminate mandatory arbitration clauses. This is simply bad policy.

Well-respected academics and experts agree arbitration is fair,

equitable and necessary. In 2007, Professor Peter Rutledge told the

Senate Judiciary Committee that in a world without pre-dispute

arbitration, consumers would face higher costs. Professor Rutledge

explained the only people who with certainty benefit from the Arbitration Fairness Act are the lawyers. Frankly, it is the undisputed

fact that this is primarily the trial lawyers that stand to benefit

from the elimination of arbitration clauses.

During a House Judiciary markup, Representative Hank Johnson claimed mandatory pre-dispute binding arbitration clauses

leave consumers without choices, but these choices have nothing to

do with consumer rights as much as tactics for lawyers to make

money. Representative Johnson stated, ‘‘You can’t influence large

corporations by being nice. You need a jury to get into their pocket.’’

Unfortunately, justice is sometimes the price you pay. In 2008,

Mississippi lawyer Dickie Scruggs pleaded guilty to conspiring to

bribe a judge and is currently serving a 7-year sentence in Federal

prison. Bill Lerach and Mel Weiss are each serving time in jail for

a criminal conspiracy of paying millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to lead plaintiffs in class action lawsuits in order to help the

lawyers win the race to the courtroom. Kentucky plaintiffs lawyers

William Gallion and Shirley Cunningham, Jr., were jailed and ordered to pay disgorgement of the $30 million they scammed from

their clients in the settlement over the diet drug fen-phen.

The point I am making is just because you have a few bad apples, you don’t throw out the whole barrel. If it is true for lawyers,

it is also true for arbitration. Today’s oversight hearing is set to

focus on consumer arbitration, not the evils of business. If, for example, credit card companies are harming consumers, then a separate hearing is needed. Statistics citing that consumers overwhelming lose in debt collection cases do not support the notion that arbitration is the enemy.

By way of example, the Federal Government wins nearly all of

its cases to recover unpaid student loan debt. Is the Federal Government to blame when debtors lose? Is arbitration? Today’s hearing should foster debate on policy directly related to mandatory arbitration. Whether or not arbitration was provided dispute resolution service is good or bad for consumers is an inquiry independent

from whether debt collection as a business is bad for consumers.

8

Consumers have successfully used arbitration to resolve disputes

with businesses. Debt collection may present serious problems to

consumers, but the best evidence available would indicate that

those problems are worse in litigation than in arbitration.

It is my hope that the Members here today can help our witnesses tailor this hearing to the empirical data available concerning debt collection in consumer cases. Only then can we make

progress in providing remedies to consumers. A flat-out elimination

of mandatory arbitration is not the answer. To that end, I hope today’s discussions also examine feasible alternatives to remedy the

issues at hand.

I am also concerned, Mr. Chairman, that three of the four witnesses called today by the majority have benefited from a lawsuit

and successful settlement with the majority’s fourth witness, the

National Arbitration Forum. This may not prohibit us from having

a productive hearing, but it is certainly a fact worth noting.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing

today. The issues not only affect our home State of Ohio, but also

the entire United States. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I would also ask unanimous consent for the minority staff report be included in the record.

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask for unanimous consent that a statement received from ACA International and an

email be included in the hearing record as well.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would ask the gentleman, do we have the email?

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, we do right here.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Without objection.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. And without objection, Members and witnesses

may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record.

Without objection, at some point we will welcome Representative

Hank Johnson to the dais to make a statement if he comes in time,

or receive testimony and participate in the questions.

And without objection, all Members will have 3 minutes opening

statements, not to exceed 3 minutes.

And also without objection, Mr. Jordan, without objection we are

also going to put the staff report of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee majority staff on arbitration abuse in the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Mr. KUCINICH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for a 3-minute statement.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing, and I will just submit a written statement. Thank you very

much.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Ms. Watson of California for an opening

statement.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s important hearing to evaluate whether consumer debt collection arbitration as currently administered produces results that are fair to

both businesses and consumers.

Today, virtually all consumers often unknowingly enter into

mandatory arbitration agreements forfeiting their right to regular

court proceedings as part of the fine print of consumer, employment and franchise agreements. While some contend arbitration offers consumers a more cost-effective procedure with all the protections of a traditional litigation procedure, the investigation of this

committee and the case brought by the attorney general of the

State of Minnesota against the National Arbitration Forum, have

revealed significant concerns about the neutrality of the arbitration

process for consumer debt collection.

A June 5th cover story in Business Week magazine entitled,

‘‘Banks versus Consumers: Guess Who Wins,’’ describes the business practice of the National Arbitration Forum, which dominates

credit card arbitration and operates in a system in which it is exceedingly difficult for individuals to prevail.

I would like to enter this particular report to the record.

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Ms. WATSON. Internal documents discussed in the article describe NAF’s marketing pitches to credit card companies where

they depict their arbitration services as favorable to businesses

with a promised marked increase in recovery rates over existing

collection methods.

Rather than providing the neutral resolution service they portray

to the public, in these confidential documents, the NAF describes

the benefits of pro-business hasty arbitration, with little to no mention of the rights or concerns of the consumer.

Elizabeth Bartholet, a Harvard Law School professor and former

arbitrator for NAF, describes their practices as, ‘‘a process that systematically serves the interest of credit card companies.’’

So today’s hearing comes at a very critical point. With unemployment at 91⁄2 percent nationally and 11.4 percent in my district in

Los Angeles, California, and $928 billion worth of outstanding credit card debt in the United States as of May 2009, it is imperative

we gain meaningful insight into how we can improve this process

and empower American consumers with the ability to fairly manage their consumer obligations.

So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s testimony, and I yield

back.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Foster. You may proceed for 3 minutes.

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today’s hearing follows months of extensive investigation by this

subcommittee into hundreds of cases of consumer debt collection

arbitration, but it is timely coming less than 1 week after the National Arbitration Forum agreed to stop accepting all future consumer arbitrations.

The settlement in Minnesota is instructive, but it is not the end

of the story. The authority for commercial arbitration originated in

the Federal Arbitration Act, a 1925 law that may well be out of

date and in need of significant improvement. It is this panel’s duty

to uncover and correct flaws in arbitration proceedings.

I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses on pragmatic solutions that will ensure consumers, as well as businesses, are dealt

with fairly. And it is my hope that this committee will work swiftly

to implement them.

It may also be useful to view today’s hearing in the context of

wider financial reform. The patters of collusion that we will hear

about today seem not unlike the conflicts of interest that have

emerged, for example, between credit rating agencies and the

issuers of instruments that they rate. The challenge of this Congress will be devise fair and workable reforms to our financial system that ensure that neutral parties are in fact neutral, and to ensure that consumers, as well as businesses, are protected.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

If there are no additional opening statements, the subcommittee

will receive testimony from the witnesses before us today.

I want to start by introducing our panel. Ms. Lori Swanson, welcome, is the attorney general of the State of Minnesota. Ms. Swanson was elected attorney general of the State of Minnesota in 2006

32

and previously served as solicitor general and deputy attorney general from 1999 to 2006.

Attorney General Swanson’s legal actions, legislative efforts and

consumer advocacy have helped to level the playing field on behalf

of ordinary citizens. She drafted and helped secure the enactment

of a predatory mortgage lending law in 2007 that has been nationally heralded as a model for other States. She has sued cell phone

companies, many of which use mandatory arbitration clauses for

extending people’s contracts without their permission, then charging hefty early cancellation penalties when they tried to cancel. She

has also sued collection agencies for trying to trick citizens into

paying debts they do not owe.

On July 14, 2009, Attorney General Swanson filed a lawsuit

against the National Arbitration Forum, alleging that it misrepresented its independence and hid from consumers and the public its

extensive ties to the collection industry. On July 17th, she entered

into a landmark settlement with the National Arbitration Forum.

She has publicly expressed concern about the growing use of mandatory arbitration clauses in credit card, cell phone and mortgage

contracts.

Mr. Michael Kelly, welcome. Mr. Kelly was until recently the

chief operating officer of the National Arbitration Forum, where he

oversaw all operational and legal matters. He is now chief executive officer of Forthright, an entity spun off from the NAF in late

2007 which handles all administrative matters for the National Arbitration Forum.

Previously, he held executive positions with the Minnesota Vikings and Gander Mountain, and was a partner at the Minneapolis

law firm Faegre and Benson. Mr. Kelly served for 8 years on the

Edina, Minnesota City Council and was the Mayor Pro Tem and

Vice Chair of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. He has

served on the board of the Minneapolis Downtown Council and the

board of the Minnesota Opera.

Mr. Richard W. Naimark, welcome, Mr. Naimark. He is the senior vice president for the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, a division of the American Arbitration Association, where he

has overall responsibility for international issues and government

relations. He is the founder and former executive director of the

Global Center for Dispute Resolution Research. Mr. Naimark is an

experienced mediator and facilitator, having served as a neutral in

a wide variety of business and organizational settings. His experience includes work with the United Nations, government, universities, corporate, construction, insurance and nonprofit areas.

Mr. F. Paul Bland, Mr. Bland, welcome. Mr. Bland has been a

staff attorney at Public Justice since 1997 and is responsible for developing, handling and helping Public Justice’s cooperating attorneys litigate a diverse docket of public interest cases. He has argued and won more than 20 cases that have led to reported decisions for consumers, employees or whistleblowers in four of the

U.S. Courts of Appeals and the high courts of six different States.

He is currently handling or assisting with appeals before the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit; the California, Florida, Kentucky and Nevada Supreme Courts; and the Maryland Court of Appeals.

33

Finally, Professor Christopher R. Drahozal. Welcome, Professor.

Professor Drahozal is the John M. Rounds professor of law, University of Kansas School of Law. He is Chair of the Arbitration Task

Force at the Searle Civil Justice Institute at Northwestern University School of Law. The professor has written extensively on the

law and economics of arbitration. He has authored a casebook on

commercial arbitration and co-edited a book on empirical research

on international commercial arbitration. Prior to teaching, Professor Drahozal was in private law practice in Washington, DC, and

served as a law clerk for the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal and the

U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit.

I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses for appearing before our subcommittee today.

It is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify. I would ask

at this time if you would rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect that

each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

I ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary of

their testimony and to keep this summary under 5 minutes in duration. Bear in mind that your complete written statement will be

included in the hearing record, so don’t feel that you have to do a

10-minute speech in 5 minutes. I tried that once as a witness many

years ago. It was not fun, but we will get all of your statement in

the record.

Let’s start the discussion right now. Attorney General Swanson,

you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.

STATEMENTS OF LORI SWANSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE

OF MINNESOTA; MICHAEL KELLY, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM; RICHARD NAIMARK,

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR

DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION; F. PAUL BLAND, STAFF ATTORNEY, PUBLIC JUSTICE;

AND CHRISTOPHER R. DRAHOZAL, JOHN M. ROUNDS PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS SCHOOL OF LAW

STATEMENT OF LORI SWANSON

Ms. SWANSON. Chairman Kucinich, Ranking Member Jordan,

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear

here before you on this very important topic of mandatory arbitrations.

You know, the right to have disputes resolved impartially is

something that we as Americans value very much. Yet, millions of

Americans are giving away that right without even knowing it.

Credit card companies, cell phone companies, lenders routinely

bury in the fine print of contracts that may run upwards of 25 or

30 pages long these mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses, and

consumers don’t know it. And oftentimes, the clauses come to the

consumer not even in the initial agreement, but after the fact,

maybe in an envelope stuffer. And even if the consumer doesn’t see

it, largely they are deemed to be bound to it.

34

We filed a lawsuit against the National Arbitration Forum in

Minnesota. We attached a copy of the complaint to the testimony

submitted, so I won’t go through all of it. But the bottom line is

that the National Arbitration Forum represented to the public, to

consumers, to the courts, to the Government that it was independent and neutral and operated impartially and like a court system,

when in fact it had ties to the very industry that brought claims

before it.

And those ties really came two ways. The first way the ties came

was what I would call backroom hustling, going to the credit card

companies and the banks and so on and so forth, and asking the

lenders to put into the fine print of these contracts mandatory arbitration clauses and paying executives commissions when they put

clauses into those contracts, and then having other executives who

were paid commissions to convince those very corporations to file

claims against the consumer in the interest of the creditors against

the interest of the consumer.

In addition, far from the impartiality represented to the consumers, marketing materials given to the credit card companies said

things like, the customer doesn’t know what to expect from arbitration and they are more willing to pay. Or in arbitration, they basically ask you what it is and then hand you the money.

In addition to that, we found evidence that the company in some

cases drafted claims, the equivalent of a summons and complaint

in a court of law, on behalf of the creditor to be filed against the

consumer; that in some cases creditors were advised what their

legal rights were when consumers weren’t. In fact, we heard from

employees who said that when consumers did call, people were instructed to really try to get them off the phone as quickly as possible, and even in some cases not to pass on a consumer’s answer

or information to the arbitrator.

We also heard from arbitrators who felt that they were de-selected, so that they had been appointed by the company to handle

claims, but when they didn’t rule for the creditor or give the creditor everything it wanted, or if they terminated, or in some cases

ruled for the consumer, that they were de-selected or taken off the

panel.

And then in addition to that, we found that the National Arbitration Forum is really part of one big debt collection conglomerate,

that you have a New York hedge fund called Accretive that essentially owned a $42 million stake in the National Arbitration Forum

outfit, and at the same time that it owned a debt collection law

firm called Axiant which, in turn, owned and acquired the debt collection operations of a law firm called Mann Bracken, which is just

about the biggest debt collection law firm in the country, so basically having this hedge fund controlling the two sides of the equation, or involved in the two sides of the equation, the debt collection

side and then as well the arbitration side.

Something that we did learn in connection with the investigation

that I find troubling and gets a bit far afield is that the Small

Business Administration in 2004 gave Accretive $100 million, and

in 2008, the Accretive Small Business Investment Corp. ended up

purchasing about 71⁄2 percent of Axiant. And then in 2009, it asked

the Small Business Administration for permission to purchase even

35

more of Axiant, so essentially it appears, using Small Business Administration money to fund a debt collection enterprise that then

treats consumers in an unfair fashion.

It is troubling to me if the Small Business Administration believes that its mission is to finance the acquisition of debt collectors

who acquire bank debt from bailed-out national banks, and then

use the fund to go after citizens through the types of questionable

debt collection techniques we outlined in the complaint. We asked

the Small Business Administration for records. They produced,

after consulting with the hedge fund, 18 pages, largely blacked out.

I couldn’t get to the bottom of it. Maybe this Committee on Oversight can, and I would encourage you to followup on: Is SBA money

going into this type of enterprise? They basically blacked out almost every meaningful word.

Mr. KUCINICH. Duly noted.

The gentlelady’s time is expired.

Ms. SWANSON. OK. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would you like to just wrap it up?

Ms. SWANSON. Just to wrap up, we interviewed over 100 consumers. The case and our concerns go beyond the National Arbitration

Forum. There are real concerns with mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses and consumers forfeiting their rights without knowing it, and the repeat bias that comes in when corporations essentially select their judge.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Swanson follows:]

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Kelly. You may proceed for 5 minutes.

Thank you for being here.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich, Ranking Member

Jordan, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to

be here today.

I want to reiterate we have withdrawn the National Arbitration

Forum from handling consumer arbitrations pursuant to an agreement with the attorney general. That being said, it is our continued

belief that the Forum’s exit from this business and the loss of consumer arbitration broadly would represent a significant loss to the

consumers that you are seeking to protect.

The logical conclusion of this decision is that the consumer cases

will all now be brought in court. Initially, I would like to explore

the consequences of that prospect. For those who haven’t been to

Small Claims and Conciliation Court, which I have, it is not often

a pleasant experience. In that case, the notice, the response, procedures can be very complicated. There is often no representation.

Days off of work are required. You sit in a cattle call with hundreds of other people waiting for your opportunity to be heard. And

your public finances and issues are revealed for all to see who are

there in court.

It is not particularly a pleasant experience. It is one that was

outlined and discussed significantly in a Boston Globe article in

2006, which I think is pertinent here. In that article, the Boston

Globe found in Massachusetts that the courts were stacked against

the average consumer.

If I can read from the article, it says that ‘‘Many small claims

courts have effectively become accomplices of collection firms, routinely giving them the upper hand in court cases, while casually

disregarding the rights and dignity of ordinary citizens. Collectors

almost always win the lawsuits they file, without being asked for

evidence that the debts they are chasing are actually owed. Debtors

frequently receive no notice of the lawsuits against them. The disabled, elderly and working poor are often talked into repaying

debts from government checks, which are by law protected from

judgment.’’

‘‘The creditors are all repeat players. They know exactly how the

game works, said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who studies consumer debt. We are watching a fight between

two players, one a skilled repeat gladiator and one who’s thrown

into the ring for the first time and gets clubbed over the head before they even get a sense of what the rules are.’’

That is the court we are talking about. These cases don’t go in

front of juries. They go in front of small claim and conciliation

courts.

Now, what is the difference with arbitration? I can only speak to

the difference of arbitration before the Forum, as it was conducted.

And these are some of the fundamental differences. Under the

Forum rules, responses can be in simple, plain English in whatever

form the consumer chooses. Hearings are flexible, on their own

time of the consumers. They can be handled on paper, by teleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 May 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\64915.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
117

phone, or by participatory hearing in the Federal jurisdiction in

which they live. They are affordable. There is no cost to respond,

and to file, the cost if only $19 to $40 on average.

They are fair. The cases are decided on the merits by retired

judges and lawyers with approximately 15 years of experience. And

on the merits, there is a critical distinction between the courts that

we need to make. Cases in front of the Forum as they were conducted required the judge, regardless of whether the consumer is

present, to look at the merits and decide the case on a matter of

law. That is not the same as a default judgment in court. Decisions

in arbitration are also confirmed by the court before they are binding, which again is a court of last instance.

The purpose of the comparison is to point out that there are very

real and meaningful consequences to the elimination of consumer

arbitration. We are no longer part of that fight. But I think it is

important to note these consequences and the impact of reversing

or changing over 80 years of law under the Federal Arbitration Act

would have.

I would urge that the discussion should center around two very

basic questions: First, why? And second, what are the true due

process issues?

I say why, because from the results we have seen, from the studies we have seen, if the same subject matter is shown, and there

are obviously people who can speak to this better than I, the results in court are the same as the results in arbitration. Due process is truly the heart of the matter. It needs to be studied. Due

process protections should be made. The ground needs to be leveled

for everyone who will practice in this field, but if that is evaluated

by this committee and this Congress, we are confident that consumer arbitration will not be eliminated and should not be eliminated.

Choice should be provided to select arbitration or court, and due

process measures should be allowed and made uniform so that everyone has equal access to affordable justice.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]

118

119

120

121

122

123

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Naimark. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD NAIMARK

Mr. NAIMARK. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich, Ranking Member

Jordan, other Members of Congress and the committee.

First, I must stress, and I am sure you will understand, the

American Arbitration Association is a not-for-profit service organization founded in 1926. We have been around for over 83 years.

The AAA does not represent or speak for any other organization,

but rather we speak only from our own experience over these 83

years.

From the beginning, the AAA has drafted rules and procedures

for fair and balanced dispute resolution. Our many sets of rules

and procedures have been scrutinized by the courts at all levels. As

early as 1951, we established with the American Bar Association

a series of codes of ethics for arbitrators which are still the standard in use today. We have pioneered many and perhaps most of the

ethical and fair play standards recognized in the field today.

What we are talking about today is a very specific and difficult

kind of case: consumer debt collection cases where creditors are attempting to extract small dollar debt from frequently unrepresented consumers who are often in desperate financial straits. In

our discussions with the subcommittee, and most recently publicly,

we indicated that we do not currently handle nor would we receive

these cases at least until some standards are established that are

satisfactory.

But I would like to suggest a way forward. About 10 years ago,

we established consumer due process protocols to ensure balance in

what was then a very young, growing field of arbitration, consumer

arbitrations in particular. These protocols, these rules of fair play,

were established, as with the earlier code of ethics for arbitrators,

with individuals from a broad cross-section of society. We had consumer advocates. We had business advocates. We had regulators.

We had academics, a wide variety of people giving in put to what

was essentially consensus for some standards for fair play.

The consumer due process protocols are today the standard of

fair play in the consumer dispute arena, as evidenced by our small

consumer caseload outside this debt collection area. We do about

1,100 of those a year. Almost three-quarters of those cases are filed

by consumers who are looking for redress, and they win about half

of those and they settle many more of them ahead of time before

any decision.

The due process protocols do common sense things. They do

things like make sure the fees to the consumer are reasonable and

that the process is accessible. They declare a right to both parties

to have an impartial arbitrator. Very significantly, they provide

that all remedies that would be available in court must be available in the arbitration process. And interestingly, there is a feature

of the due process protocols where the parties may elect to opt out

of the arbitration process and go into small claims court. Strikingly, almost no one elects to do so.

Why not? I think the reason is that consumers in these debt collection cases and the overwhelming majority of them don’t particiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 May 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\64915.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
124

pate in the process. They are no-shows. It is inevitable that if you

don’t participate in your legal proceeding, there is a high likelihood

you will lose. So this presents an interesting and very important

challenge that has not yet been resolved by the courts or in arbitration.

How do you construct a special set of due process protocols for

these cases so that the rights of the consumer are protected even

if they fail to participate? And I think that is the challenge before

us.

We make some very specific recommendations in our written testimony, specific to these kinds of cases about notice issues, about

arbitrator neutrality, about standards of proof for these cases,

whether the parties attend or not. We proposed to convene a broadbased diverse working group to work toward balancing the process

in this very specialized area, and building protection for the legal

rights of parties.

This kind of broad community inputting process works, as evidenced by the existing due process protocols, and we would respectfully suggest that Congress should consider making such safeguards universal and mandatory by legislation so that all consumer

debt collection arbitrations are properly conducted.

Arbitration is a tool. It is simply a tool. It can be adapted to special circumstances to provide for access to fairness and justice for

all parties in a dispute. We need to work toward that end. And I

have to say, it is very doable. We have conducted, for instance, nofault insurance arbitrations for the Supreme Court and the people

of Minnesota for three decades now. It is essentially a consumer arbitration process and it works very well. And I think they present

a model for properly conducted consumer arbitrations here.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Naimark follows:]

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Bland for 5 minutes. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF F. PAUL BLAND

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the leadership

you have shown in this area, both in this hearing and for several

years.

Going into last week, I think that the entire consumer and civil

rights bar of America was just absolutely shocked. Our eyebrows

were singed by the unbelievable revelations that came out of General Swanson’s case. That filing was amazing to us, that it turned

out that this National Arbitration Forum, which had been holding

itself out as a neutral and deciding tens of thousands of cases in

favor of debt collectors again and again, one after another, was actually largely owned or owned by 40 percent by the debt collectors

themselves.

But as Michael Kinsley, the pundit, always says, the real scandal

is what is already legal. And the scandal here is that for 10 years

before General Swanson released these facts, you have had this

company operating essentially a rogue system that has been completely tilted in favor of the creditor.

First of all, they have this incredible false humility whenever

someone challenges them in court, in which they say, well, we are

just the court clerks. We don’t really make any decisions.

That is not true. They picked who the arbitrators are. Who the

decisionmaker is means everything. If I could pick who the judges

were in my cases, I would be the legal Michael Jordan sitting here.

I would never lose a case. Who the judges are makes a huge difference.

So who do they pick? They do, they say, well we have 1,500

judges. Now, one of the things they got caught lying in a Federal

court in West Virginia where they named a bunch of people who

were supposedly NAF arbitrators, who were very prominent West

Virginia lawyers who weren’t, but they do have actually a big roster of a lot of important names. What they do, though, is that they

sent cases out to the arbitrators; they figured out who was going

to be ruling for the creditor nearly all the time; and they funnel

more and more of the case to this small number of people.

So out of the 1,500 arbitrators, who decided the 34,000 cases that

they publicly reported on in California? Over 90 percent of those

cases were handled by two dozen arbitrators. You had one guy who

was deciding something like 1,300 cases. You had people who were

deciding 68 cases in a day, 40 cases in days again and again. I

mean, that is not judging. That is rubber-stamping.

They were essentially blackballing anybody who ruled for the

consumers, and they were funneling all the cases to people who

they knew how they were going to rule. OK? That is not the same

as small claims court, the unbelievable insults in all the small

claims court judges of America. You go in and you get who you get

by a random selection. Nobody at the corporation sat down and

picked which small claims court you got. That is a big difference.

A second big difference is that there is no verification or substantiation or evidence required in the National Arbitration Forum before they give the creditor everything that they want. That is an

134

invitation to abuse and the invitation to abuse has been accepted,

particularly by debt buyers. A lot of credit card companies sell the

debts, frequently for only a few cents on the dollar, sometimes as

little as 0.01 cent on the dollar, to debt buyers. And these debt buyers keep getting further and further away. They usually have no

evidence by then. They don’t have a copy of a contract. They don’t

have statements. They don’t have anything that actually links.

They have a name and they have an account number and the dollar figure at the end, and that is it, no verification.

And what they do is that they frequently then add all kinds of

things on. Now, there is the idea here that, well, these people actually owe the debt, right? So since they owe the debt, they deserve

to lose. Well, what we have seen again and again, literally in hundreds, if not thousands of cases that we have been able to document, again and again somebody will owe $1,500 or $1,000 or

$2,000, and then a bunch of junk fees are added, interest on interest, which is illegal; attorneys fees which are not verified. Basically, the attorneys for the debt collector who are rubber-stamping

something, and then they are getting $2,000 in attorney’s fees,

$1,000 in fees to the National Arbitration Forum. And what becomes a $1,500 debt suddenly becomes a $10,000, even a $15,000

or $20,000 debt.

And what happens is that they are rubberstamp arbitrators take

those and again and again and again, they just give them 100 cents

on what they want.

Now, with small claims court, that is in America, by and large,

it is not. In most courts in America, and there are problems in

small claims courts in some places. The Boston Globe story was a

great story. By the way, the Boston Globe reporter would be taking

my position if he was here, and the idea that Elizabeth Warren

would be a fan of the National Arbitration Forum as opposed to

small claims court is someone who has never met or spoken to Elizabeth Warren.

But what they do is they basically had a deal set up where these

debt collectors would send in an email, because they have this

interconnection. They don’t even have to actually file anything.

There is no affidavit with it. The only statement is the email says

that our client actually gave it to us. They aren’t even saying that

it is actually true. They are just saying this is truly what our client

gave us. And they send in an email with numbers in it. Then the

NAF would take the email and they would turn it into the complaint.

So the consumer, the thing the consumer gets isn’t even what

there was actually filed. All that was filed were some numbers that

were taken from a printout, and then the complaint is sent with

an order for 100 cents on the dollar, and that order is signed off

again and again by the arbitrator.

It is a joke. It is not the way small claims court goes. In small

claims court, you get a default. That means you win. As you say,

you win, but you don’t get 100 cents on what you want. So you

can’t add on all these junk fees. You can’t multiply debts in a crazy

way.

What is going to happen to all these phony awards? So they have

stopped operating as of Friday, but meanwhile there are hundreds

135

of thousands of people out there, hundreds of thousands of people

with phony awards that have been entered in against them. Are

those all just going to stand? Is that OK?

And then in the race to the bottom, who is going to replace them?

Is the Chamber going to be OK with just sitting around and actually having, you know, more neutral arbitrators? Or is the son of

NAF going to appear? Is Mr. Anderson going to run out and open

up America’s happiest consumer-friendly arbitration company in a

week, and that will replace them? There is no reason why the

banks can’t do that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bland follows:]

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. Your

time has expired.

The Chair recognizes Professor Drahozal. You may proceed, sir,

for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER R. DRAHOZAL

Mr. DRAHOZAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member

Jordan, members of the subcommittee.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity here to talk to you

today about at least what colloquially is known as debt collection

arbitration. This world has changed dramatically in the last week,

as we are all familiar with. It has been sort of fascinating to be an

observer of it.

My experience in this area is as a scholar. It is not as a participant. And what we have been doing as part of the Searle Civil Justice Institute is looking at consumer arbitrations. The first phase

of our study has been to look at AAA consumer arbitrations, not

mass claims being filed by creditors, but individuals claims, most

of which, as Mr. Naimark said, were filed by the consumers, but

a number of which were also filed by the creditors.

The followup phase of that study I think is where I can be at

least somewhat helpful here to the committee, because it seems to

me the one question that we need to think about at this point in

the process, given what has happened with consumer arbitration,

is where do those claims go now? Or what happens in court if those

claims end up being decided there instead?

And so what we have been doing in the next phase of our study

is looking at consumer or business or creditors bringing debt collection cases in courts. We looked at several samples of courts and

have some preliminary findings to share with the committee. What

that means is it’s an ongoing process. We have more courts we

want to look at and more cases we want to look at, but we at least

do have some preliminary results. And sort of broadly speaking,

those results are as follows.

First of all, in the sample of cases we looked at, the creditors win

the vast majority of these cases in court. Of all the judgments that

we have examined in the courts in our sample, the creditors won

99.7 percent of the cases, basically all but one in each of the two

court samples that we had looked at.

Now, compared to that to our individual American Arbitration

Association results, where we found that the business claimants

won more like 83 percent of the cases, some relief in those cases.

I certainly wouldn’t suggest that means the AAA is better for the

consumers. I think a big part of the explanation here is different

types of claims, but it is important to have something to compare

it to. You can’t just look at numbers in one setting and conclude

that means a process is biased or unbiased.

Of these judgments being entered in court, virtually all of them

were entered by default, 96 percent to 98 percent of these cases in

court were resolved by default judgments in favor of the creditor.

Basically, the consumers just didn’t show up.

To the extent we have issues or questions about how you give notice to consumers, what that suggests to me is service of process

by a process server is not a magic answer; that even in the court

162

setting, consumers don’t show up. And not surprisingly when they

don’t show up, they lose.

Now, if you compare that to the AAA cases we looked at, again

the individual cases brought by business claimants, rather than the

mass arbitrations which we haven’t had a chance to look at, under

40 percent of those cases were resolved without the consumer

showing up. So again, this is not a matter of anything inherent in

the arbitration process that consumers don’t show up; that in fact,

they can show up and in some settings do show up if it is in their

interest to do so.

The third general conclusion that we have reached is in these

cases where the creditors are winning, with respect to Mr. Bland,

the creditors win 100 cents on the dollar; that essentially they win

the entire amount of principal that they seek and the entire

amount of interest they are seeking in 97 percent to 99 percent of

the cases. All right, there is just a handful of cases where the creditor recovers less than the amount that is being sought.

Again, if you compare that to our AAA cases, there the creditors

won 93 percent. And again, I am not suggesting this is necessarily

that the consumer arbitration is a superior system. What is going

on is these are types of claims where consumers don’t show up to

dispute them and when they are resolved by whichever venue, they

are resolved almost entirely in the creditor’s favor.

One final point is in consumer cases in court, there were no

trials. I mean, the vast majority of them were default judgments.

There were a few summary judgment motions. None of these things

went to jury trial. None of them went to a judge trial. This is not

a matter of these consumers otherwise would be having all these

claims adjudicated in court because these cases never make it that

far. And again, it is not court versus arbitration. It is just the nature of the claim.

So what does that suggest to me? Well, I just have two general

conclusions. The first is it makes me question whether in fact consumers are not going to be better off if they are going to court rather than in arbitration because the results, I think, at least as far

as the outcomes of the cases, look to me pretty much the same at

best.

And then second, if you think more broadly about the implications for arbitration and evaluating arbitration, what these numbers to me suggest is you cannot find bias in a forum simply because it tends to rule one way. You have to compare it to something, and you have to compare arbitration not to consumer claimants, but you have to compare business claimants in arbitration to

business claimants in court. And the claims and results look an

awful lot the same to me, suggesting to me that it is not the venue

that matters. It is the type of claim that matters.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Drahozal follows:]

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Professor.

We are now going to proceed with questioning from members of

our subcommittee. And I will start with my 5 minutes, and then

continue alternating between Democratic Members of the panel

and Republican Members of the panel.

I want to start with Mr. Kelly. I appreciate your being here.

Now, in your testimony you claim that arbitration is fair to consumers. But when you are marketing your services to banks, you

tell your service people, and I just want to put up a slide here, a

slide of page 2 from a Forthright-created paper entitled, ‘‘Non-Mandatory Paper Education.’’

You tell your sales people to tell the banks that one of the benefits of arbitration is that it gives him control of the process. And

in your marketing presentation to collection companies—I would

like the next slide please—this is the way you describe the effect

of arbitration on the consumer: ‘‘The consumer does not know what

to expect from arbitration and is more willing to pay;’’ ‘‘They ask

you to explain what arbitration is, and basically hand you the

money;’’ ‘‘You have all the leverage and the customer really has little choice but to take care of his accounts.’’

Mr. Kelly, given the arbitrary and unfair results that our staff

uncovered in its review of NAF claim files, and given the revelations by Attorney General Swanson in the complaint she filed

against the NAF last week of the close financial relationship between the NAF and the debt collection industry, isn’t it obvious

that consumers have not been getting fair hearings in the NAF arbitrations?

Mr. KELLY. Chairman Kucinich, there were several questions in

there. I will try to break them down. If I miss one, please——

Mr. KUCINICH. Start with fair hearings. Are consumers getting

fair hearings when the marketing is slanted in that way?

Mr. KELLY. I will say that, I will note that the rest of that presentation does talk about due process protections and also discusses

the fact that no outcomes are guaranteed and that the process is

neutral and it does depend on the independence of the specific

neutrals.

With respect to marketing, we don’t shy away from explaining

that we do market our services, and we market our services where

the largest number of cases are. Frankly, in our civil justice system

today, the majority of the cases are debt collection cases, and we

market those services. We did, excuse me. I need to keep making

that clear. We obviously don’t any longer and won’t.

But I will say that, you know, at the National Arbitration Forum,

they were unabashed believers that arbitration was a superior alternative to court. It is cheaper. It is efficient. It is faster.

Now, in the case of collection of debt, it works the same. It would

be cheaper. It would be effective and it would be faster.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, you know, but I had some specific questions

here. Now, isn’t it true that your marketing statements describe

the real character of consumer debt collection arbitration? It is intimidating to a consumer. It gives much more control and leverage

to the creditor and it leaves the consumer with little choice but to

pay. I mean, that is what you have said. Isn’t that the true character of consumer debt collection arbitration?

178

Mr. KELLY. Well, obviously I can’t deny the presence of this document. I believe it was back in 2003. I joined in 2006. I don’t believe

it is the most artfully drafted presentation by any means. But I

will say it is the same. I mean, the process is difficult to work

through, whether it is court or whether it is arbitration. We go

back to the point that is it any different between court or arbitration? Is there any fundamental difference?

I believe that if there fundamental differences, they are in favor

of arbitration.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, you claim that the NAF has rules to protect

the consumer, but our investigation finds that NAF doesn’t follow

those rules. The NAF has a Rule Six that says that the notice of

arbitration must be served promptly. The word promptly is not defined in your code of procedure. But until August 1, 2008, NAF

Rule 41(b)(3) said that any claim could be dismissed if more than

90 days passed between the filing of the claim and the proof of

service of the notice of arbitration.

Now, the subcommittee staff looked at the forms that the NAF

sends to the arbitrator with each batch of claims. They are called

desk hearing lists. And each one contains a list of claims that the

NAF was assigning in that batch, and it recites for each claim the

date on which the claim was filed and the date on which the notice

of arbitration was served. These desk hearing lists that we reviewed showed that 160 of 230, approximately 70 percent of the

total, should have been dismissed by the NAF before they were

even sent to the arbitrators because the notice was served more

than 90 days, in some cases a lot more than 90 days after filing,

but not one of those cases was dismissed.

You know, here is part of the desk hearing list sent to the Arbitrator Snyder. Let me put up this exhibit and then I will move on

to the next questioner. It shows that NAF sent Arbitrator Snyder

claims that were served more than a year after they were filed,

clear violations of Rule Six. I mean, this, you know, doesn’t it show

that you don’t really follow your own rules when those rules favor

the consumer?

Mr. KELLY. I believe the discussion centers around Rule 41(b).

What Rule 41(b) states is a claim or response may be dismissed by

an arbitrator or the Forum at the request of a party, in accord with

Rule 18 or on the initiative of the arbitrator, may—may is the key

word in this case—the arbitrator has the discretion to make that

determination if it is in the interest of justice. That is not for the

Forum to make. It is for the arbitrator to make and it is made as

purely discretionary.

Now, I will have to check this, but my recollection is that this

is a fairly new rule as well. So I would have to look at whether

this rule was in place.

Mr. KUCINICH. We are going to move on to Mr. Jordan, and you

know, you can have 61⁄2 minutes to match my time. I just want to

say it may be 90 days. It may be a year. It may.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Kelly, what percentage of your business was

debt collection arbitration? Was it a majority?

Mr. KELLY. I don’t have a specific number, but yes, clearly the

majority.

179

Mr. JORDAN. And what percentage of overall debt collection arbitration cases around the country did your company handle? The

majority?

Mr. KELLY. I couldn’t answer that question because I just don’t

know. Those statistics aren’t publicly available, so I don’t know

what the universe is out there of arbitration. We are a major player, if that is your point; were.

Mr. JORDAN. Were you the largest player? Were you the largest

player in this?

Mr. KELLY. I believe, I would believe we would be.

Mr. JORDAN. And as of last week, you are no longer in the business?

Mr. KELLY. That is correct.

Mr. JORDAN. We have heard testimony here about the court system, the difficulties there. I mean, maybe this should go to Mr.

Naimark, or maybe to our attorney general on this, but now that

you are out of the business, and you were the biggest player, are

we going to be OK? I mean, Mr. Naimark, do you want to comment? Can we handle what is going to happen now?

Mr. NAIMARK. Well, we have announced that we will not receive

these cases, at least at the present time, until there is some establishment of some establishment of additional standards of fair play

like the due process protocols that we described.

Mr. JORDAN. So the whole motivation of this hearing is look out

for consumers out there. So what is going to happen in this flux

we are in or this interim period? Would the attorney general like

to comment?

Ms. SWANSON. Sure, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jordan. I

think that is why it is important for Congress to act. You know,

the National Arbitration Forum was, as I understand it, the dominant player in the consumer collection industry. There could be

other companies, other arbitration companies right now that would

take over these claims and could arbitrate them, or a whole new

company could pop up tomorrow. And that is why I think this hearing is so important, and commend all of you for your leadership in

holding it, and why I think it is important that Congress act to

rein in these practices.

National Arbitration Forum was one company, but the underlying problems with mandatory pre-dispute arbitrations run across

the industry and are systemic.

Mr. JORDAN. Attorney General, would you agree with what the

professor had to say? I believe his comment was it is not the venue,

it is the type of claim that is the determining factor here. Do you

think that is an accurate statement?

Ms. SWANSON. Ranking Member Jordan, no, I don’t. I think the

venue is problematic with arbitration because you are essentially

allowing the corporations who are litigants to hand pick the judge.

You are letting the corporations select which arbitration company

you want to adjudicate the claim.

And based on the interviews we have conducted of consumers, of

arbitrators, of employees, there is tremendous pressure on the arbitration companies. It is a very, very lucrative and profitable business, and the corporations know that if the arbitration company

isn’t perceived to be friendly enough to corporate litigants, they can

180

simply move their business to a new company for all the reasons

I described. So I think the venue is problematic.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you.

Mr. Naimark, what is your response to what the professor said?

I thought he laid out some good numbers in his statement about

the venue versus the type of claim.

Mr. NAIMARK. Well, I think we see from the research and people’s experience that there are similar problems in both court and

arbitration. The real issue is nonparticipation by the individual

debtor. It think it is a real problem. I think some how or other we

need to build in some safeguards. We need to try to get their attention. We need to do better at communicating with them. And I

think our civil justice system at large could stand some improvements in terms of due process protections. We could all use it.

Mr. JORDAN. Professor, I have been quoting you and haven’t

given you a chance to talk, so maybe you can elaborate on some

of the numbers. I think you talked about the percentages found in

favor of the consumer were actually roughly the same, if I remember your numbers—I didn’t look at them very closely—in small

claims court versus in arbitration. So if you could maybe elaborate

on that. I have about a minute left.

Mr. DRAHOZAL. Yes, the courts we looked at were two. Actually,

neither of them was a small claims court. One was claims that the

Federal Government brings in Federal court against people alleged

to still owe amounts on their student loans. And in those cases, the

ones that make it to judgment, the Government wins 99.7 percent

of the time.

We also looked at a sample of cases from Oklahoma, which has

a fabulous online access to their court files for at least a number

of the counties that we can actually use for research. I mean, our

choice of what we studied, frankly, was totally due to access to the

data. No other factors went into it, other than trying to find similar

cases. And the courts that we looked at in Oklahoma were actually

not the small claims court, but the sort of next up court which adjudicates claims of under $10,000.

And one difference in Oklahoma is those claims actually, the majority of those claims were brought by debt buyers. So it allows us

to look at the results in those cases. And again, of the cases that

made it to judgment, 99.7 percent were resolved in favor of the

business, the creditor in that case.

Again, I can’t sort of say arbitration is better or worse. I mean,

the arbitration cases we looked at were AAA cases, not mass arbitrations, but ones adjudicated in the typical individual manner.

And in those cases, the business won something in about 83 percent of the cases. And again, I don’t tout that to say arbitration is

better because consumers win more. What I would say is it seems

to me that the reason for those differences is likely differences in

the types of claims that are being brought.

And I guess one followup point is, in going through the AAA files

and doing this research, we would see correspondence with both

sides, businesses and with consumers who are unhappy. Not surprisingly, when people lose, they are unhappy with the party. And

we saw no suggestion whatsoever of kowtowing to business interests or to consumer interests. I mean, the response was the same.

181

We administer these cases. The arbitrators make the decisions.

And if you don’t like it, you can go somewhere else if you want. But

we are not going to skew the process in one party’s favor or the

other.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Cummings is recognized.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank all of you for being here. I just listened here and

I have to tell you, this is a mess. And a lot of the people who are

getting ripped off are my constituents. I live in the inner, inner,

inner city of Baltimore, and I have listened to this testimony, and

I want to thank you, Ms. Swanson, for what you are doing and others of you who are trying to get to the bottom of this.

You know, as I was listening, I have been in those courts. I practiced law. I am a trial lawyer. And you know, it is one thing for

somebody not to show up, and we can do some things probably in

our district court systems, our lower court systems to let people

know about the significance of getting certified mail and what it

means, and they need to show up. It is another thing to go into a

forum thinking that you are going to treated fair, and you are getting screwed. That is a whole other kind of situation and I think

we need to think about that.

You know, Mr. Kelly, I just want to ask you, you know, the subcommittee staff looked at 230 claims filed by NAF, would be NAF

by Worldwide Asset Purchasing. And in 40 cases, the NAF arbitrator Jennings dismissed the claims because Worldwide did not provide the dates of the last payment or any other information on

which Jennings could determine whether the claims were filed

within the California statute of limitations. In 18 claims, the NAF

arbitrator Krotinger dismissed the claims because Worldwide did

not provide him with any specific information about how the notice

of arbitration was served.

However, in 172 identical claims, claims that didn’t have any

more statute of limitations evidence or any more evidence of service

in the Jennings and Krotinger claims had, three other arbitrators

apparently ignored those deficiencies and issued awards to Worldwide in exactly the amounts requested by Worldwide.

Doesn’t it show that the results in your debt collection arbitrations depend more on who the arbitrator is than what the facts or

the law are? I want to direct that to Mr. Bland.

Mr. BLAND. I think that is exactly right. I think that who the arbitrator is is incredibly decisive, and that is why focusing all of the

cases on a handful of cases matter.

The idea that the data is the same between court and arbitration

in front of the NAF is simply not true in several ways. First of all,

Congresswoman Watson when she was here put the Business Week

article in the record. Business Week discovered that debt buyers

are willing to pay like twice as much money for old debts, particularly debts that are outside of the statute of limitations, if there

was a National Arbitration Forum clause on it. The debt-buyer industry, they think it is worth a lot more money to have an old debt,

a debt that is not good, in front of the NAF than they did in small

claims court.

182

The idea that they could compare these types of really old debts

in a credit card context with student loans is totally off the wall,

to be honest, because student loans have no statute of limitations.

You can be pursued on the student loan that you took out 70 years

ago. The Supreme Court and Congress, because Congress wants

student loans to be collected, that is a totally different set of rules

than debt collections.

Also, I mean, the advertisements of the organization, they particularly wrote advertisements aimed at debt collectors that would

say we will improve your bottom line, was one advertisement, or

66 percent better results was another advertisement we have seen.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Bland, thank you.

Now, I want to hear from Mr. Kelly, if you don’t mind.

Mr. KELLY. And what was the specific question, Mr. Cummings?

Mr. CUMMINGS. You don’t want me to repeat that long question.

Mr. KELLY. Well, do you want me to talk about this? Or do you

want me to address Mr. Bland’s comments?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, you can go ahead and address his statement, and the question.

Mr. KELLY. First of all, once the cases are given to the arbitrators, the arbitrators are the finders of fact. Now, I am not a trial

lawyer, but I was a corporate finance lawyer. I can tell you, I have

gone with clients to court in certain venues in certain jurisdictions,

and been crushed by judges on the same point of law that in other

jurisdictions in front of other justices, we have prevailed on.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you arbitrate or shop? Can you arbitrate or

shop?

Mr. KUCINICH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, of course.

Mr. KUCINICH. Is that why you go ahead and try to get the arbitrators who are going to give you a better decision?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Which is where I was going, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KELLY. Would you like me to talk about how the arbitrators

are actually assigned?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. And I asked you, is it possible to arbitrate

or shop? In other words, it is like you shop for a judge?

Mr. KELLY. There is a strike rule in the National Arbitration

Forum rules similar to the strike rule in many courts. The State

of Minnesota which is where the Forum was founded has a strike

rule where each party, for any reason, can strike the arbitrator

once. Now, the rules also provide that the parties can agree on an

arbitrator as well. So that is the process that is employed.

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Schock. You may proceed.

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for your testimony here today.

I guess I am interested specifically in where we go from here.

Obviously, there seems to be some issues that were brought forward by Attorney General Swanson. I am sure some of these problems were not just specific to Minnesota. I live in Illinois. I am sure

the other 48 States have similar problems.

183

That being said, I am not sure that I am ready to throw away

the arbitration process. I am not convinced that all consumers

would be better off going to the court of law, having to hire an attorney, having to incur those costs for what would otherwise be a

small claims court item.

So I guess, if you could enlighten us through your work, Attorney

General Swanson, on where you think the Congress ought to be

looking to improve the arbitration process, unless in fact you believe we should do away with the process altogether.

Ms. SWANSON. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.

You know, the biggest problem I see from all of the interviews

and discussions we have had is, again, this ability of the corporation who writes the clause into the contract to hand pick the arbitration company who is going to adjudicate the claims. That is not

how it works in court. In court, you know, you file a lawsuit and

you get the judge, and that is the judge of the case, and that judge

is not dependent upon that corporation for the salary. The salary

comes from the taxpayers.

I can speak to Minnesota. In Minnesota, we have a good small

claims court. If you go into small claims court in Minnesota, the

judges, even if the consumer doesn’t show up in a default hearing

they tend to scrutinize those cases. You know, does the consumer

appear to owe them money? Did they actually incur the debt? Are

the T’s crossed and the I’s dotted, such that before that judge

issues a default judgment, that it looks like there is sufficient evidence to enter that judgment.

I think the problem is that, for example, when you look at these

consumer due process protocols that have been discussed, NAF

largely followed them, too, or had them supposedly, but yet it didn’t

stop a whole lot of consumers in Illinois—we have talked to Illinois

people—and Ohio and around the whole country from getting hurt.

And so I think what Congress ought to do is say that in these

kinds of situations where the consumer has no leverage; where the

company is giving them contracts on a take it or leave it basis, the

consumer has not seen the clause, that they ought not to be allowed in various credit card disputes, consumer disputes, cell

phone contracts; that mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses

shouldn’t be allowed.

Mr. SCHOCK. So what should happen if I am a consumer and I refuse to pay my $100 bill, which now becomes $150 or what have

you. You can fast forward down the line. What should happen?

Ms. SWANSON. Well, a couple things could happen. One could be

after the fact the consumer could agree to arbitration. If pre-dispute arbitration clauses weren’t allowed and the collection agency

is pursuing the consumer to pay that bill, and if they actually owe

the bill, they could agree after the fact to arbitrate in a forum that

is mutually in both party’s best interest. The creditor could file a

claim in small claims court, which at least in Minnesota, is

straightforward, moves quickly. People do have a right of appeal to

a district court there. Those are a couple of ways.

And then certainly, the creditor has all of their other collection

opportunities available, reporting to credit bureaus, etc.

Mr. SCHOCK. OK. Well, I find it interesting that even the Federal

Government uses an arbitration process when we choose to collect

184

our debts, specifically student loans, in which arbitrators rule on

behalf of the Federal Government nearly 99 percent of the time.

So I guess, Mr. Naimark, if you could speak to the claims that

the arbitration organizations are unduly biased toward business.

Would you like to respond to that?

Mr. NAIMARK. Sure. Let me approach it this way. I think the key

issue here is the arbitrator who is the decisionmaker in the case.

And you can do a number of things, which we do, to enhance the

trust in the neutrality of the arbitrator.

First of all, a thorough review of the people who are put on the

panel or the list of potential arbitrators, so that you are sure that

you have people of the right kinds of background and history. We

follow a very strict disclosure process, where any contact or issue

that might be disclosable has to be disclosed to the parties, giving

them an opportunity to object. Thorough training for the arbitrators, and I would suggest in the debt collection area that training

needs to be beefed up to deal with some of the specific issues we

are talking about today in terms of due process protection and the

kinds of interest decisions and others so that you are sure that the

arbitrators are familiar with those things.

We did one other thing for the short time we administered some

of these cases. We had an internal operating process where we said

if the consumer showed up and made an objection to an arbitrator,

it was an automatic removal. And if the business objected, we

would not remove them, and that way you don’t get to stack the

entire pool of arbitrators.

Mr. SCHOCK. Say that again. If the consumer objected to the arbitrator? In other words, the consumer——

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman’s time has expired, but answer

what he said.

Mr. NAIMARK. Yes, if the consumer objected, we would remove

the arbitrator. If the business objected, we would not.

Mr. SCHOCK. And I don’t mean to extend, but how would they object? They would just say, I think this arbitrator is biased? They

have to fill our a form? What is involved with that?

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman’s time has expired. You may be

new to this committee, but I try to allow everybody plenty of time

here, and we are going to go to Mr. Foster. We will come back for

another round.

Mr. SCHOCK. OK. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Mr. FOSTER. I serve on the Financial Services Committee and we

are in the process of marking up legislation on the Obama proposal. And I guess the relevant part for this discussion here is the

proposal for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

And I was wondering if any of you could comment on, first off,

whether the proposed grant of authority under this proposal would

be sufficient to deal with this problem, frankly? And second, whether the suggestion of a Federal preemption as opposed to a Federal

floor, with the States allowed to raise the bar for a higher level of

protection, would be more appropriate for this level situation? Anyone who wants to pick up? Yes, Attorney General?

Ms. SWANSON. Well, certainly representing the State of Minnesota, and I think my colleagues in other States would agree that

185

we would be, certainly I would be strongly opposed to any type of

Federal preemption of States’ ability to do better to protect their

citizens, their consumers.

I think our country right now is facing an economic meltdown

that had we had more cops on the beat perhaps we would have

been better served. And so I think if the Federal Government can

pass a floor to protect consumers, I think that is a good thing. I

think it is healthy to have multiple regulators on it, because hopefully if one is not acting, the other will.

But in terms of preempting States’ ability to act, I think that

would be misguided. As you know, we are seeing a trend away

from that with a recent Supreme Court ruling of the U.S. Supreme

Court allowing States to move more toward being able to enforce

laws. I think that is a good thing.

Mr. FOSTER. Are you familiar enough with it to see holes in the

grant of authority? Or would that have been sufficient to at least

have the CFPA in principle act on this thing on a Federal level?

Ms. SWANSON. Congressman, I am not familiar enough with the

actual language.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Bland.

Mr. BLAND. Congressman, I think that with respect to financial

services, that the grant of authority that is in the statute, in the

proposed statute, or proposed legislation would be enough to solve

the problems of abusive mandatory arbitration. I think it would let

the Federal Government come in and ban these clauses where they

are being abused by payday lenders and sub-prime lenders and a

variety of other ways. I think the language is broad enough.

Where it doesn’t address is issues such as civil rights. I mean,

there are a lot of employment cases that are being sent to arbitration where you end up with an arbitrator who defends companies

against civil rights claims being the judge, and there are a lot of

other areas like that it doesn’t address. But for financial services,

the language I think is very broad and would deal with the problem very well.

And with respect to the preemption issue, I think one of the

things you would see if you read through some of the briefings in

the most recent Cuomo v. Clearing House case, was that State regulators bring tons of cases against banks for deceptive practices, for

racial discrimination in lending and so forth. And the Federal

agencies, the OCC, the Office of Comptroller of Currency and the

OTS, have done almost nothing.

And what happened in the last 8 years is you had the last administration dramatically change and rewrite the regulations so as

to basically give banks a sort of get out of jail free card and wipe

away State laws that State regulators used to enforce really vigorously.

So having the States have it be a floor rather than a ceiling

would be a dramatic and really valuable change.

Mr. FOSTER. Do any of the other of you have comments about

what is good, bad and ugly about these proposals?

OK. I yield back in that case.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.

186

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very

timely hearing and allowing me to be a part of it. I do appreciate

it and I will say that H.R. 1020, which is a bill to ban pre-dispute

mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer agreements, in employment agreements, and in franchise or franchisee agreements would

be the ultimate fix of this problem. And the problem is that we are

trying to outsource or privatize these kinds of resolutions, if you

will, by sidestepping the civil process, you know, the courthouse, in

other words.

And when you, you know, I have this vision in my mind of the

courthouse on the square and there is like you can go around the

courthouse in a circle, and then there are all these restaurants

with great breakfasts and great lunches. And you can be there all

day. I am thinking about a hot summer day with the fans just kind

of twirling around lazily. It is a lazy afternoon and nothing else to

do. I hung out on the porch since early morning, did a little fishing

after that. Played some checkers thereafter. Got something to eat

at lunch time.

And now I heard about this great lawyer that is trying this case

over here in the courthouse. I will go over there. And you would

spend your afternoons watching the lawyers. And at that same

courthouse, if you want to know whether or not your neighbor is

beating his wife, how many times that has beat his wife, you can

go to the courthouse and find that. If you need to look at the adoption papers, you just adopted a child, you could find that at the

courthouse. Your real estate deeds, your liens, how many people

have sued you, how many convictions do you have, all of that information is at the courthouse.

And at the courthouse, you can’t lie. You cannot lie because you

will get charged with perjury or obstruction. And it is OK to lie to

your neighbor across the fence telling them about that big fish that

you caught or that hole in one that you hit. You know, you can lie

about things like that, but you can’t lie in the courthouse.

Now, arbitration is different. There is no place for a trial, a public trial where people can come and enjoy the proceedings. There

are no public records to be viewed. In fact, most folks don’t even,

the public doesn’t even know when there is an arbitration proceeding taking place. And then when the arbitrator rules and he or she

even goes against the National Arbitration Forum rules, which are

advisory, in my opinion, only, not binding in any way, then you

have no meaningful right to appeal the decision.

And so the only thing that I can see that we need to do is what

I have done with my Arbitration Fairness Act of 2008, and again

in the 111th Congress, the H.R. 1020. And I am proud to announce

that there are a number of members of this committee, including

the chairman, who have signed on as cosponsors. I know Mr.

Cummings is on that bill also. And that is the best way to solve

this problem, is that the Sixth Amendment right to a civil trial in

any endeavor or any dispute in excess of $20 needs to be adhered

to.

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Although I will say to the gentleman, and all the

other Members are welcome to return in 1 hour. We are going to

187

recess for 1 hour for six votes on the floor of the House. After that

1 hour, I would ask that all Members of the panel return, assuming

that you are able to do that.

And we will then go to one more round of questioning, and it will

be brisk, and then we will conclude the business of this committee.

I want to thank you for your presence here, and this committee

stands in recess for 1 hours.

[Recess.]

Mr. KUCINICH. The committee will come to order.

Thank you for waiting. The vagaries of business on Capitol Hill

is that we are always subject to the activities on the floor of the

House. And so we just completed business for the day.

I note that Attorney General Swanson is going to have to leave

at 5 o’clock, so you will be permitted to leave at 5 p.m. in order

to accommodate your flight back to Minnesota. And at 5 o’clock,

you may leave. You know, we are grateful for your presence here,

and the committee will be in touch with you regarding this matter.

We appreciate that you are here. Thank you, Madam Attorney

General. Thank you.

Mr. Kelly, you are required by California statute, California Code

of Civil Procedure, section 1281.96 to publish the results of all your

California consumer arbitrations. But the subcommittee’s investigation reveals that you don’t publish the results of all of your

California arbitrations involving consumers. You only publish the

results of some of them.

For example, you administered 2,331 California arbitrations filed

against consumers by Columbia Credit Services. But you haven’t

published the results of any of those arbitrations. The explanation

your representative gave our staff is that while California requires

reporting of consumer arbitrations, it does not define the term consumer arbitrations.

Mr. Kelly, tell me, is there any way at all in which an arbitration

filed by Columbia to collect on a consumer debt assigned by MBNA

Bank is any less a consumer arbitration than an arbitration filed

by Worldwide Asset Purchasing to collect on a consumer debt assigned by MBNA Bank?

Mr. KELLY. Chairman Kucinich, the circumstance you are describing is accurate. There is no definition in the statute. So you

take a very hazardous course if you make a determination one way

or another.

What we did in that circumstance is we relied on the filers to indicate what is a consumer case and what is not a consumer case.

We didn’t make an independent judgment, review the facts of the

case, and frankly that, in and of itself, could argue against the neutrality of the process. So we left it alone. If the filer is designated

as consumer, it was designated as a consumer.

I will point out that even some of our most vocal opponents have

indicated on the record that our filing in California is far superior

and far more complete to many of the other providers of neutral

services, and we can provide that specific reference if you so

choose.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, I have to say respectfully that what you are

saying defies credibility because contrary to your representative’s

explanations to us, in fact, Mr. Kelly, California does define the

188

term consumer arbitrations. This is a quote from section two, the

definitions section of the California ethics standards for neutral arbitrators in contractual arbitration. I am going to put up the document. It is a pretty quick read, but what they do is they basically

define consumer arbitration, and it is a pretty succinct definition.

Now, isn’t it really true that all of the Columbia claims are consumer arbitrations? That is under the California act.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit I am not intimately

familiar with the California law and the statutes there. Thankfully,

the representative who you are referring to is here today, if you

might give a moment.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am sorry. That what?

Mr. KELLY. The representative of our organization that you are

referring to is here today.

Mr. KUCINICH. Do you want to confer with somebody?

Mr. KELLY. Yes, if I may.

Mr. KUCINICH. What we are going to do, I am going to ask staff

to provide you with a definition of consumer arbitration. I would

like you to look at it a moment. We will wait.

Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. Just take your time.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Mr. KUCINICH. Yes, the gentleman may proceed. I started off by

asking you a question, so we can frame this properly. What I said

is that contrary to your representative’s explanation to us, California does define the term consumer arbitration. We have just given

you a copy of the definition. And I began to quote from section two,

but since you have read it, I don’t need to do that, and without objection, section two is going to be included in the record of this

hearing.

[The information referred to follows:]

189

190

Mr. KUCINICH. Now, again, Mr. Kelly, isn’t it true that all of the

Columbia claims are consumer arbitrations under this California

definition?

Mr. KELLY. Under this definition, I couldn’t tell you. This is the

first time I have seen this definition. The definition, Mr. Chairman,

is not the definition at issue.

Mr. KUCINICH. Bear with me on this. The contract is with a consumer party as defined in the standard. Isn’t that right? Isn’t it

right?

Mr. KELLY. I am not following you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry.

Mr. KUCINICH. The contract that we are talking about here is

with a consumer party. Right?

Mr. KELLY. Which contract are you referring to?

Mr. KUCINICH. These are consumer arbitrations. The contract is

with a consumer party. Right?

Mr. KELLY. I haven’t looked at these specific cases.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar with the Columbia case, the Columbia cases? You are familiar with the Columbia cases?

Mr. KELLY. I am aware that Columbia cases are at issue in the

San Francisco lawsuit.

Mr. KUCINICH. So we are going back to the definition of consumer arbitration in California, which is where we are focused

here. The contract is with a consumer party in this, in the Columbia cases. The contract in which the debt is incurred is with a consumer party. Correct?

Mr. KELLY. I would disagree if what you are talking about is the

reporting statute. The definition that you have presented here is

not a definition in the statute. I mean, it is inappropriate to take

a random definition of consumer in some unrelated statute.

Mr. KUCINICH. This is right from the California ethics standards

for neutral arbitrators in contractual arbitration.

Mr. KELLY. But it is not——

Mr. KUCINICH. You know, you can argue with me. You can’t

argue with those words. This is right from that. We didn’t make

that up.

Mr. KELLY. I am not saying that, and I completely agree with

you on that.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you currently being prosecuted for violations

of this statute?

Mr. KELLY. We are in suit in San Francisco. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. So I think it is clear that NAF is violating California law. But why?

Mr. KELLY. Well, that is an issue in the lawsuit and we would

strongly disagree with it. And I am not sure I am making my point

clear, but this is not the reporting statute at issue in the San Francisco case.

Mr. KUCINICH. The subcommittee staff obtained the case files of

48 NAF arbitrations filed by Columbia. And those files show that

Columbia routinely asked arbitrators to add attorneys fees of 33

percent, despite the fact that the controlling Delaware statute

places an upper limit of 20 percent on attorneys fees. In most of

these cases, Columbia received attorneys fees that violated Delaware law. Now, isn’t it true that your failure to publish the results

191

of your Columbia arbitrations in California assists Columbia in

concealing its violations of Delaware law?

Mr. KELLY. Chairman Kucinich, we can certainly provide you the

information necessary to respond to that. I can’t tell you here today

what the facts are or what the arbitrators decided in those cases.

Frankly, that is a matter of law and not an issue that I am prepared to qualify here one way or another.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, we are going to take your explanation. We

are going to move on. Columbia is not—but I think that since we

have other members of the committee who have not been able to

come back for this second round, the committee is going to submit

this question in writing and give you the opportunity to answer

succinctly and with some detail in writing. So I want to move to

that and make sure we send a letter to Mr. Kelly.

Mr. KELLY. We would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I apologize

for the confusion.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, we are not confused about this. You know,

Columbia is not the only collection company whose California arbitration results you do not publish, in violation of California law.

Your representative informed our staff that there are others. Do

you know whether or not those other collection companies are also

asking for and obtaining awards of attorney fees that violate Delaware laws?

Mr. KELLY. As we sit here, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have personal

knowledge of that.

Mr. KUCINICH. We are going to send you a written request and

we are going to ask you to provide the committee with a list of

companies whose California cases you have not published. And we

appreciate your cooperation with this subcommittee.

Mr. KELLY. You will have the cooperation.

Mr. KUCINICH. Because I just, you know, we just had that discussion.

Now, Mr. Kelly, let’s look at, for a minute I want to look at one

reason why consumers—I am waiting for anybody from your side

who wants to come. I will be glad to yield to them. I am going to

go to a third round now.

Mr. Kelly, let’s look for a minute at one reason why consumers

may not have appeared at one of your consumer arbitrations. In all

of the claim files that the NAF produced to our subcommittee staff,

the only evidence that the consumer knew about the arbitration

was a form statement by the creditor’s attorney that the respondent was, ‘‘served with the initial documents required by Rule Six,’’

and that ‘‘conforms to the requirements of Rule Six and applicable

law.’’ There is no evidence of who actually performed the service,

who was served, or the documents were served.

Now, in each and every one of these cases, the NAF has absolutely no idea who actually received the service. Isn’t that right?

Mr. KELLY. In response to that, I will say that our rules provide

for service in a number of manners, and the rule is pretty clear on

this. Certified mail can be delivered personally. Proof of that service must be provided in order for the case to proceed. The rules are

consistent with those, as I understand it, in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

192

I will note that in most small claims courts, all that needs to be

done is regular mail. Our procedures are far more involved than

that.

Mr. KUCINICH. You need an affidavit, but isn’t it true that there

is no return receipt showing the signature of who actually received

the documents. Isn’t that right?

Mr. KELLY. I would disagree with that.

Mr. KUCINICH. There is a return receipt?

Mr. KELLY. In the cases, I certainly can’t speak for every case in

the system, but by and large, we get, if there is certified mail, we

by and large do get a return receipt, as far as I know. Now, obviously, we would need to go back and we need to look at the specific

cases you are referring to, because I am not familiar with those

specific cases.

Mr. KUCINICH. Am I correct that it is NAF’s position that the

adequacy of service is an issue for the arbitrator, and the arbitrator

alone to decide?

Mr. KELLY. That is correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, I want to see how this works in context. I

am going to ask staff to hand to Mr. Kelly a complaint by a Mr.

Benjamin Guzman who is a respondent in an arbitration handled

by the NAF. He states that he never received any notice of arbitration and that the person alleged to have received the notice was his

landlord, for whom Mr. Guzman was not on speaking terms at the

time.

The NAF’s official response written by your staff counsel, Mr.

Ryan Chandley, was that the creditor filing the claim required a

proof of service and that ‘‘the decision about the adequacy of service in this case would be decided by the arbitrator hearing the

case.’’

I just want you to walk through this with me. You have the creditor filing the claim, serves Mr. Guzman’s landlord, files a proof of

service saying that the creditor served Mr. Guzman. Mr. Guzman,

no notice of the claim because his landlord didn’t tell him about it.

Mr. Guzman does not appear at the hearing because he doesn’t

know about it. The arbitrator didn’t know that Mr. Guzman was

not served because the proof of service says Mr. Guzman was

served.

So Mr. Kelly, how can the arbitrator make a decision about adequacy of service? He or she can’t, can they? They don’t have any

time, they don’t have any true information. The only information

an arbitrator has is that Mr. Guzman actually was served.

So when the NAF response that ‘‘the decision about the adequacy

of service would be decided by the arbitrator hearing the case,’’ can

you see how that would seem disingenuous?

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Guzman was not properly

served, that is a defense that he can raise in the arbitration and

a defense that he should raise with the arbitrator. That is a matter

of law.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. OK, let’s stop right there. You know, these

hearings don’t have to be that formal. He doesn’t know, get it? He

doesn’t even know about it. It went to his landlord who isn’t talking to him.

Mr. KELLY. So run the string out.

193

Mr. KUCINICH. So how do you assert your rights if you don’t even

know that you were cast into some proceeding?

Mr. KELLY. So let’s run the string out, then.

Mr. KUCINICH. Help me with this. I am interested.

Mr. KELLY. Eventually, presumably, Mr. Chandley is here and I

can ask him about the specific case. But let’s just run the logical

string out on that. So Mr. Guzman doesn’t know that he has been

sued, right?

Mr. KUCINICH. OK.

Mr. KELLY. Which, by the way, the Boston Globe talks about routinely in small claims and conciliation court, because there only

mail is required, not certified mail.

Mr. KUCINICH. We are talking arbitration, NAF arbitration.

Mr. KELLY. So let me get back. So then Mr. Guzman at some

point presumably learns that judgment has been entered against

him. Correct?

Mr. KUCINICH. How did that happen?

Mr. KELLY. I assume that some—I don’t know, but I am just, I

am speaking of a hypothetical now because this specific case——

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying at some point he is going to

find out a judgment was entered against him, but the judgment occurs, one would assume, principally because he wasn’t even in

court, in this arbitration setting to defend himself.

Mr. KELLY. His opportunities are to reopen the case, to move to

vacate the award, to move to amend. He also has an

opportunity——

Mr. KUCINICH. How often does that happen?

Mr. KELLY. He also has an opportunity at the court hearing in

district court when that arbitration award is going to be enforced

to at that point move to set aside the arbitration award.

Mr. KUCINICH. Does that happen very often? And if people don’t

know enough to negotiate an arbitration, how are they going to

know or have the resources to negotiate a court appeal?

Mr. KELLY. Well, it isn’t a court appeal. All it is is a hearing to

confirm the arbitration award. But I mean, then you get into your

fundamental policy issue, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, let me ask you. You were talking about, you

know, what he can do. How much time does Mr. Guzman have to

set this decision aside?

Mr. KELLY. I would need to consult on that, if I may.

Mr. KUCINICH. How much? Yes, go ahead. Sure.

I yield myself such time as I may consume here.

Mr. KELLY. I am sorry. What was that?

Mr. KUCINICH. I was just, a committee formality saying we are

going to continue.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate that I don’t claim to be an

expert in this area of the law. I am advised by the staff counsel

that you spoke with that the time is generally 90 days, but there

are exceptional circumstances which can be considered under the

rules.

Mr. KUCINICH. And if the creditor doesn’t file within 90 days and

waits, what happens then to Mr. Guzman?

Mr. KELLY. Then it would fall under those exceptional circumstances I previously mentioned.

194

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Bland, would you like to comment on this?

Mr. BLAND. There is actually, it is a distressing thing about our

court system right now, but there is actually a circuit split, as I understand it, among the different Federal circuits and also among

the State courts about what happens if the arbitration award is entered, and the consumer has 90 days under the Federal Arbitration

Act and under the vast majority of the State Arbitration Acts. If

they don’t move to vacate the judgment within the 90 days, for example, because they don’t know about it, there are a number of

courts which have actually said that they can’t then come in and

challenge any aspect of the award, even service. I mean, there are

some courts that have this terrible catch 22.

Now, there are more courts sort of on the consumer side of this,

but that actually has happened a number of times in courts in

America where even identity theft victims who can prove that it

was never their credit card or whatever have an arbitration award

entered against them, don’t find out about it until after the 90

days, and then when there’s a confirmation proceeding, they can’t

defend.

Mr. KUCINICH. What happens then?

Mr. BLAND. I mean, it differs from court to court, but there are

a lot of courts——

Mr. KUCINICH. OK, let’s try to help answer the question that I

asked Mr. Kelly. What happens after 90 days?

Mr. BLAND. It depends on what part of the country you are in,

but in a lot of parts of the country, you are nailed down and stuck

with it even if you never got notice. I mean, it depends. There are

parts of the country where you can defend against the confirmation

in court if you have a lawyer, but there are actually a lot of parts

of the country where that sticks. It is incredibly unfair.

Mr. KUCINICH. You heard me lay out the case of Mr. Benjamin

Guzman.

Mr. BLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. How many Benjamin Guzmans are out there, do

you think?

Mr. BLAND. Well, there are tons. In my testimony at pages 18 to

20, we set out a whole bunch of examples of instances where there

were terrible service of process, and we gave you a list of 9 or 10

consumer lawyers, not just us. I am not the only person in the

world who says that there are a whole bunch of people who have

come into my office and said, I never got service.

I did a case in the NAF that was a nursing home collections case

where our client was in her 90’s and she had Alzheimer’s, and they

served the house of one of her daughters where she had lived like

four addresses before. I mean, it was incredibly ridiculous service

and then they enter an award of $20,000.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Bland, do you have any idea of how many

people——

Mr. BLAND. Thousands.

Mr. KUCINICH [continuing]. Have had arbitration awards issued

against them without ever receiving notice the arbitration was

going to occur?

Mr. BLAND. It is going to be in the thousands. I mean, it would

be impossible to give you an exact number, but it is going to be——

195

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Kelly, do you have a response to that? Is that

possible that there could be thousands of people out there who

have arbitration awards issued against them without ever receiving notice that an arbitration was going to occur?

Mr. KELLY. I couldn’t begin to answer that.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. I want to ask you, Mr. Kelly, about the relationship with the Accretive alleged in Minnesota’s attorney general’s suit. I know you have settled this case, but if I am asking

any questions that may bring some new things and you are not

sure, you do have a right not to testify. You would have to assert

it.

You knew at or about the time of the reorganization of the NAF

in which the Agora funds set up by Accretive acquired a 40 percent

ownership interest in your company, that Accretive was acquiring

or had acquired the three largest U.S. debt collection firms, speaking of Mann Bracken, Wolpoff and Abramson, and Eskanos and

Adler.

And you knew that relationship had to be concealed in order to

maintain the appearance that the NAF was an impartial body with

no ties to the debt collection industry.

I want to show you a slide in which you clearly state your intent

to conceal the true nature of your financial relationships. Put that

slide up, OK? And we are going to give you a copy so you know

exactly what we are talking.

Now, this is a memo from you to Madhu Tadikonda, dated Monday, November 20, 2006. And the relevant part of this memo,

‘‘Madhu, I look forward to working with you, too,’’ and then you go

on to say, ‘‘We remain deeply concerned about walling any deal off,

any deal from Mann Bracken. The shared ownership issue concerns

us on many levels.’’

And you go on to say in enumerated paragraph No. 3, that in parentheses, ‘‘No public information concerning Accretive with the

fund that ultimately acquires and holds a minority interest in the

Forum.’’ And then in a later paragraph, you state, ‘‘I cannot overstate our concern over the Mann Bracken relationship, although I

do not have any solutions off the top of my head,’’ and this is highlighted, ‘‘We should certainly plan for unwinding any deal in the

event shared ownership becomes an acute issue.’’

Now, if the public knew about the true nature of NAF’s financial

relationships to the largest debt collection companies in the country, do you think anyone would believe that the NAF was fair or

independent or uncompromised?

Mr. KELLY. Well, let’s be very clear about the structure here because I think there are some things in there that can be grossly

misleading. Let me just say this.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, clarify it for us.

Mr. KELLY. This is accurate. I will clarify. This is obviously accurate and I did have these concerns. Then I say in there, I want to

put some additional thinking around the structural issues. So we

did. I want to point out that there is no ownership——

Mr. KUCINICH. But you are saying you did, but that is not really

reflected in this memo, is it?

Mr. KELLY. No, because there are subsequent—obviously, this

was one of the very first memos in our transactional discussions.

196

Mr. KUCINICH. So as we go through this, you are saying that you

have other documentation you could provide to this committee that

you were trying to get to what point?

Mr. KELLY. We can certainly provide more information, but I can

walk you through what was done. Actually, there is nothing particularly unusual or sinister about it. The first point is that the

ownership of the National Arbitration Forum never changed. There

is no corporate ownership of the National Arbitration Forum. The

same individuals own that entity that always owned that entity.

Some of the assets of the National Arbitration Forum were conveyed to an entity Forthright, which I am not the CEO of. Forthright, not the National Arbitration Forum, did accept outside investors, a minority. So the first point that is important to note is this

is a minority.

Mr. KUCINICH. Were they involved in debt collection?

Mr. KELLY. Well, let’s qualify that. So that 40 percent was then

sold to approximately 17, there are approximately 17 funds, not 1,

17, that were part of Agora, roughly 17. We can find you the specific number and provide that.

Mr. KUCINICH. Were you involved in helping to put this deal together?

Mr. KELLY. Of those 17, 1 fund was Accretive. All right? So oneseventeenth of those funds was Accretive that held a minority interest of 40 percent in an entity that was not the National Arbitration Forum, but that serviced the National Arbitration Forum.

Mr. KUCINICH. How did you end up with Accretive, then? If 16

out of 17 was not involved, then how did Accretive come in and

how did they just so happen to be a debt collection company?

Mr. KELLY. Well, no. All those funds participated. Agora includes

roughly 17 diverse funds, which include the endowment funds of

four major universities, for example. We can provide you with that

information. But Accretive is just one of those 17 funds in the 40

percent.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you saying it is just coincidence that you had

a partnership here with a debt collection company?

Mr. KELLY. No. There was no partnership with a debt collector.

Accretive, which is 1 of the 17 funds that bought 40 percent of the

servicing company also has an investment in a company that

services——

Mr. KUCINICH. Did you know that? Was that a surprise to you

that they were involved in debt collection?

Mr. KELLY. I am not sure we were aware at the time. I believe

we were aware at the time that they had an investment, but keep

in mind in private equity, it is not uncommon for private equity

funds to have hundreds, in fact thousands of portfolio companies.

Mr. KUCINICH. I understand that. But you know what is interesting about this memo is that, well, you could have mentioned hundreds of different entities. You mention Mann Bracken.

Mr. KELLY. Well, this is the one—the other ones didn’t cause any

concern. This was the one that caused concern, and we went to

great lengths to protect and build in structural systems.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying you made every effort not to

have any relationship with debt collection companies. Is that your

testimony?

197

Mr. KELLY. I would say that is right. I would say that we did

a lot of structural things in order to create Chinese walls and wall

off that small fund from the entity, including after we did the split,

we had a whole segregation team together which weighed all the

practices, separated everything from data bases and phone lines,

went through it. I did not sit on that segregation team.

Mr. KUCINICH. How do you explain this memo, though? Help me.

What was going on?

Mr. KELLY. We had the largest law firm in Minneapolis review

and do a full legal audit on the process.

Mr. KUCINICH. But you are here right now and I have your memo

and I have your words.

Mr. KELLY. Correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. And I see you mention Mann Bracken, which was

about to be acquired by Accretive, a big debt collection firm. You

mention in your memo that you were concerned about walling any

deal off, any deal from Mann Bracken. OK, we know what that

means.

Then you mention you cannot overstate your concern about the

Mann Bracken relationship, and you say that in the parentheses,

‘‘No public information connecting Accretive with the fund that ultimately acquires and holds a minority interest in the Forum.’’

Now, you know, anybody who reads that, it is a fair reading that

you were just trying to keep this is a secret. I mean, what was

going on in your mind? Why were you afraid of that?

Mr. KELLY. Actually, for competitive reasons, frankly. My concern was that we would have a difficult time marketing to other

businesses and other entities. That was my concern.

Mr. KUCINICH. Because, play this out, why?

Mr. KELLY. Because there was this particular investment, which

is why we protected against it fully to ensure that when we do

make it public, we are able to say we have these protections in

place and this is why it is fair, which is in fact what we did.

Mr. KUCINICH. What happens to the $42 million——

Mr. KELLY. In fact, it is—and it was public before this. I mean,

we were required to make these disclosures in a number of States.

This is not something that is, frankly, we didn’t think that there

was an issue with it, to be honest, and we still don’t.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, then what happens to the $42 million that

the Agora fund has invested in Forthright and the NAF? What

happens to that money?

Mr. KELLY. The money that is invested in Agora? The money

Agora invested into Forthright?

Mr. KUCINICH. That the Agora funds invested in Forthright.

What happens to that, well, the investment in Forthright and the

NAF. What happens to the $42 million?

Mr. KELLY. Are you asking where that $42 million is?

Mr. KUCINICH. What happens to it?

Mr. KELLY. The $42 million by and large was distributed to the

shareholders.

Mr. KUCINICH. $42 million distributed to the shareholders. Who

are the shareholders?

Mr. KELLY. The shareholders of Forthright include NAF, Inc., the

Agora Funds, and there is a management pool in there as well.

198

Mr. KUCINICH. And are there any other shareholder interests

there that we are talking about that you are aware of?

Mr. KELLY. Not that I am aware, but we can provide that information to you.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would like you to provide to the committee all

the shareholders receiving any of the distribution.

Mr. KELLY. We would be happy to do that. The information was

freely provided to the attorney general as well. Be happy to provide

that.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK.

Now, in Ms. Swanson’s testimony, it was stated that the Small

Business Administration was instrumental in the creation of the

arbitration debt collection conglomerate that she brought charges

against and stymied her investigation into the NAF. Just if you

could help me here, Mr. Kelly. Can you think of any legitimate justification for using money from the Small Business Administration

to finance the creation of Axiant, which joined together the three

largest debt collection companies in the United States?

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I can’t answer that question because

I have no—that question would have to be answered by Axiant or

someone else. I can tell you that the SBA is not a participant in

the Agora Fund. There is no SBA money. There is no SBA money

in the Agora Fund.

Mr. KUCINICH. Did you have any communications with any representatives of the SBA in connection with their response to the investigation of the Minnesota attorney general?

Mr. KELLY. I in fact have never had any interaction that I am

aware of with the SBA, and neither has anyone from Forthright.

Mr. KUCINICH. Anybody in your company that was directed to

have contact with the SBA, if you didn’t? Do you know anybody in

your company who has?

Mr. KELLY. No, and again, as I said, I wouldn’t imagine there

ever would be because the SBA is not invested in Agora.

Mr. KUCINICH. Has anyone in NAF, Inc. had any contact with

the SBA in connection with the——

Mr. KELLY. There is no investment by the SBA there. I think I

can just clarify this. I mean, I don’t mean to be confrontational. I

don’t intend to be. We are out of the business.

Mr. KUCINICH. Can I tell you, you know, I am not a

confrontational person.

Mr. KELLY. But I will say I think you may misunderstand the

SBA investment. Trust me, I hesitate to speak for the attorney

general, but as I understand it the SBA investment is in a fund

other than Agora. It is in another investment. That investment is,

as far as I know, unrelated to——

Mr. KUCINICH. Unconnected to Axiant in any way?

Mr. KELLY. It may be, but that is the question I can’t answer.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying as far as the structure of it, you

are not familiar.

Mr. KELLY. Yes, it is not in our structure.

Mr. KUCINICH. But that you never had any connection with, or

meetings with any representatives of the SBA and no one connected with you in any of your capacities had any communication

199

with the SBA about the investigative matter at the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.

Mr. KELLY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. I think that we have covered most of the territory

that we can cover today. We have had a number of witnesses sit

here while Mr. Kelly has had to do most of the work.

Is there anything you would like to say in conclusion? Do you

want to make any final statements before we wrap this up?

Professor, do you want to say anything?

Mr. DRAHOZAL. I don’t think I have anything to add from my

opening statement, which is that the most important thing to me,

it seems to me, is we are evaluating arbitration as a process, we

can’t do it in isolation, that we need to compare it to the alternatives. And I would sort of urge the committee to sort of take that

into account.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Mr. Bland.

Mr. BLAND. Congressman, I think you have the big picture here

totally. If I could make one suggestion with respect to the California disclosures issues, I think that from the cases that have come

into us and complaints we have gotten from California consumers

and from contacts we have gotten from a bunch of California lawyers, that the disclosures that have been made leave out, apparently on purpose, two really important things. California was trying to figure out not just who won the case and how many cases

were brought by certain companies, but they were trying to figure

out if the arbitration fees were big in particular cases. And they

were trying to figure out second whether there was a lot of attorneys fees being added in, because there are limits under the debt

collection laws about the amount of attorneys fees that are going

to be added in.

And what has happened in a bunch of cases that we have seen

from consumers and other California consumer lawyers have seen

is that a company, a debt collector will bring a claim, say, for

$5,000. Then they have a $1,000 claim for attorneys fees and a

$1,000 claim for arbitration fees. And then they get it all from the

arbitrator. And what shows up on the internet in their disclosures

is claim of $7,000, award $7,000, attorneys fees zero, arbitration

fees zero.

And so it gets bundled in so that the answer a consumer gets,

they get the impression that there is no arbitration fees. They get

the impression that there is no attorneys fees. And the whole point

of the statute asking the question is to get an honest answer to

that.

And I think that if the committee is going to ask some written

questions, I urge you to probe that, because we have gotten a lot

of consumers complaining to us that they feel like the information

that they have seen up there is not accurate.

Mr. KUCINICH. Your point is well taken. And there needs to be

a sorting out of the various fees so we clearly understand which

ones are being bundled in and described as being one thing when

in fact they are the other. It is a point well taken, and in our followup questioning, we will do that.

Mr. Naimark.

200

Mr. NAIMARK. Only thank you for the opportunity to participate.

We have no further comment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Mr. Kelly, you have been here a long time. You have been a very

busy witness. Is there anything that you would like to say before

we wrap this hearing up?

Mr. KELLY. No, Chairman Kucinich. Thank you for your time.

And obviously, if there is any additional documents, we would be

happy to provide it, as we have in the past.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, I know that this has certainly been a difficult time for NAF. Occasionally, institutions in our society proceed in a way that sometimes they get the legal system at another

point takes a different view of it, and then everything changes. And

obviously, things are happening like that for NAF.

What we are trying to do with this committee is to look at how

these practices in arbitration affect consumers with these mass

debt collections. And if you put yourself in a position of a consumer

who may not be getting proper information and may not really

know what is going on, it is going to be a very tough time for a

lot of people.

And then you get the issue of financial literacy, which is altogether a different issue which another committee takes up.

So this subcommittee is going to continue to be involved in this.

We will continue to send you some inquiries that we would appreciate your cooperation in helping us find out what we can do to try

to make this system work better for consumers. Certainly, with

your experience, you are probably going to be someone who is in

a position to tell us what can be done to make the system better.

And so we appreciate you taking this time. I want to thank each

and every one of the witnesses here for their participation.

I am Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee. Today’s hearing has dealt with the issue of arbitrations

and the misuse of mandatory arbitration to collect consumer debts.

This committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

Æ