NBS_Ledger_Bob_Brasiel_Intro

a national bankruptcy services publication
Looking Back
A Review of the Modified and New Bankruptcy Rules After One Year
MARCH2013
A review of the federal
rule-making process
Interview with Bob
Brasiel, developer
of PACT

INTRODUCING BUCKLEY MADOLE, P.C.
The new leadership team at Brice, Vander Linden & Wernick, P.C is pleased to announce
that the firm has changed its name effective March 1, 2013 to Buckley & Madole, P.C.
The firm gratefully acknowledges the many contributions of deceased founding
shareholder Bill Brice and those of the recently retired shareholders Lance Vander Linden
and Max Wernick. We are privileged to carry on the firm’s proud tradition.
NATIONWIDE DEFAULT MANAGEMENT LEGAL SERVICES
BUCKLEYMADOLE.COM  800.766.7751
P R OV I D I N G L E A D E R S h I P T h R O U G h PA R T N E R S h I P

nbs.handlingbankruptcycasessince1987.dataissuespage1focus
the ledger
MARCH 2013
Larry Buckley
CEO
lbuckley@nbsdefaultservices.com
Brad Cloud
COO
bcloud@nbsdefaultservices.com
Dave McManus
SVP
dmcmanus@nbsdefaultservices.com
Tom Waters
VP
tomwaters@nbsdefaultservices.com
Contributing Writers
Hilary B. Bonial, Rich Haber, N. Robert
Henry, Anthony Risalvato, Vin Shortess
Magazine Design
HW Creative, HWideas.com
The Ledger is a National Bankruptcy
Services publication.
© 2013 National Bankruptcy Services
All Rights Reserved
9441 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250
Dallas, TX 75243
nbsdefaultservices.com « MARCH 2013
The information in this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney and is not legal advice.
a national bankruptcy services publication
in this issue
issues
A review of the federal rule-making
process and bankruptcy rules/
forms changes.
2
focus
An interview with Bob Brasiel,
developer of the recently acquired
PACT software.
23
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
By Vin Shortess
the ledger » nbsdefaultservices.com
NATIONAL MODEL
CHAPTER 13 PLAN
c
hapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for
the adjustment of debts of an individual with
regular income by permitting the debtor to re-
pay all or a portion of his or her debts over a
periodoftimespecifiedintheconfirmedChap-
ter13plan.Assuch,creditorsareacutelyawarethatinachap-
ter13bankruptcycase,protectingtheirinterestsfromadverse
treatment begins with an accurate and timely review of a
debtor’s proposed chapter 13 plan of debt repayment.
These creditors also know, however, that every plan does
not look the same. There are 94 bankruptcy-court jurisdic-
tions,andeachutilizesadifferentvariationofaplan.Fifty-six
of these jurisdictions have implemented their own unique
mandatorymodelplaninanefforttopromoteconsistencyand
efficiencies within the administration of chapter 13 bank-
ruptcy cases, but age-old questions still persist for creditors:
page18
Kansas
Maryland
Mississippi
New York
Idaho
Nevada
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Michigan
Montana
North Dakota
Indiana
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Vermont
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Missouri
North Carolina
Illinois
New Hampshire
Oregon
South Carolina
Washington
Utah
Maine
Minnesota
Nebraska
Ohio
Iowa
New Mexico
Rhode Island
Texas
Wyoming
Tennessee
West Virginia
Virginia
7,318
1,826
5,568
7,227
11,646
9,868
10,106
11,651
11,251
5,812
6,197
6,247
8,935
17,404
10,538
6,735
21,377
6,910
9,250
3,745
36,329
13,859
15,905
8,942
1,780
11,679
13,948
6,051
21,993
5,407
17,992
data
A look at bankruptcy data from
across the nation, with detailed state
by state breakdowns of filings.
16
table of contents
» NATIONAL MODEL CHAPTER 13 PLAN
If you are a creditor, your rights may be affected 2
» Looking Back
A Review of the Modified and New Bankruptcy
Rules After One Year 4
» I HAVE TO DO WHAT?
A Look at Recent Changes to Bankruptcy Rules Forms 8
» A Summary of the CFPB’s Supervisory
Highlights: Fall 2012
Implementing Compliance-Management Systems and
Previously Identified Violations of Consumer Financial Law 12
» by the numbers
Taking a look at the state of bankruptcy 16
» Foreclosures in New Jersey
Overview of Recent Changes to New Jersey
Foreclosure Landscape 20
» hot seat
NBS Recently Acquired Mr. Brasiel’s Revolutionary
Payment Automation Software, PACT 23

page2
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
By Vin Shortess
NATIONAL MODEL
CHAPTER 13 PLAN
C
hapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for
the adjustment of debts of an individual with
regular income by permitting the debtor to re-
pay all or a portion of his or her debts over a
periodoftimespecifiedintheconfirmedChap-
ter13plan.Assuch,creditorsareacutelyawarethatinachap-
ter13bankruptcycase,protectingtheirinterestsfromadverse
treatment begins with an accurate and timely review of a
debtor’s proposed chapter 13 plan of debt repayment.
These creditors also know, however, that every plan does
not look the same. There are 94 bankruptcy-court jurisdic-
tions,andeachutilizesadifferentvariationofaplan.Fifty-six
of these jurisdictions have implemented their own unique
mandatorymodelplaninanefforttopromoteconsistencyand
efficiencies within the administration of chapter 13 bank-
ruptcy cases, but age-old questions still persist for creditors:

NATIONALMODELCHAPTER13PLAN»byVinShortesspage3
dataissuesfocuspage3dataissuesfocus
Howwillthetrusteepaythearrearageclaim–pertheamount
in the proof of claim or the amount in the debtor’s plan? How
can an objection to the debtor’s proposed pre-petition arrear-
agebetimelymetwhenaproofofclaimhasnotyetbeenfiled?
Does the plan contain terms to value or even strip the lien?
Did the “other provisions” section of the plan sneak in an ad-
verse term that will impair the claim?
InUnitedStudentAidFunds,Inc.v.Espinosa,130S.Ct.1367
(2010), Francisco J. Espinosa had taken out student loans to
attendtradeschool. Yearslaterhefiledforbankruptcyprotec-
tionandproposedinhischapter13plantorepaytheprincipal
ofhisstudentloansoverfiveyearswithoutinterest.Fiveyears
later, after the successful completion of his plan payments,
the bankruptcy court discharged the student-loan interest
withoutthenormallyrequiredadversaryproceedingbrought
by a debtor proving an “undue hardship.” The U.S. Supreme
Court held that “the bankruptcy court’s failure to find undue
hardshipbeforeconfirmingEspinosa’splanwasalegalerror,
but the [plan confirmation] order remains enforceable and
binding on United because United had notice of the error and
failed to object or timely appeal.”
The Espinosa decision coupled with the above-mentioned
questions started the clamor for the utilization of a national
model plan to curtail future “legal error” from happening.
Thus, a working group of various bankruptcy professionals
(includingbankruptcyjudges,trusteesandpractitioners)has
proposedanationalmodelplananddetermined“thatamend-
ments to bankruptcy rules would be helpful – if not essential
– to an effective national form.” The draft plan and amend-
ments to rules can be obtained at considerchapter13.org.
In December 2012, the National Association of Chapter
ThirteenTrusteesAcademyforConsumerBankruptcyEduca-
tion (NACTT Academy) hosted a webinar discussing the pros
and cons of the proposed chapter 13 national model plan and
amendments to rules. The use of a national model plan is
intendedtobemandatory,justastheuseoftheschedulesand
the proof-of-claim form are mandatory.
TheNACTTAcademydiscussedfiveadvantagesto,orargu-
ments in favor of, the adoption of a national model plan:
1. Data enabling can only be accomplished if there is a nation-
alform.Dataenablingwouldallowtheharnessingofalarge
amount of data to develop trends and recommend actions.
2. National creditors, trustees and judges will know where to
find non-standard provisions of the plan. This would assist
trustees in solving problematic national trends.
3. Aformmayhelpreducelocalvariationsinchapter13prac-
tices, making the bankruptcy laws more uniform.
4. Itwillplaceformplansonamoresolidlegalfootingbecause
itsusewillnotdependonalocalruleoradministrativeorder.
5. Aformwillcreategreaterefficienciesandbelessexpensive.
The NACTT Academy discussed four disadvantages to, or
arguments against, the adoption:
1. Reduced local control. Can a one-size form plan fit all sce-
narios?
2. The need to retool systems of checks and balances that are
“tried and true.”
3. The time and costs of implementation.
4. There is no problem that needs to be addressed.
In order to make a national model plan functional, amend-
ments to specific bankruptcy rules are “essential.” The fol-
lowingarebriefsummaries,providedbytheNACTTAcademy,
of the proposed amendments:
• Secured creditors would be required to file proofs of claim,
simplifyingtheprocessofobtaininganallowedsecuredclaim.
• The bar date for filing proofs of claim would be moved to 60
days after the petition date in order to sync with plan con-
firmation, eliminating uncertainty about plan feasibility.
• Theplantermswouldcontrolovercontraryproofsofclaim.
• There would be new deadlines for objections to plan confir-
mation.
• Lien avoidance would be accomplished through plan con-
firmation.
• Orders declaring liens satisfied would be controlled by a
new rule.
Now is the time for every creditor to consider the potential
opportunities and impacts with the proposed adoption of a
nationalmodelplanandamendmentstorules.Publicationof
these proposals for a public-comment period should occur in
August 2013.
Here at NBS, regardless of whether these changes are imple-
mented,wewillremainsteadfastinadvisingourclientsonhow
their loan fits within the framework of a plan allowing them to
make an informed decision as to the next step in the process,
includingwhethertheyshouldobjecttotheconfirmationofthe
plan by the court. By representing you, we ensure that your
rights and interests are fully protected and not impaired.
Melvin “Vin” Shortess, Jr. is an associate attorney at Buckley Madole,
P.C. with a primary focus on the real- property bankruptcy portfolio.
He is a graduate of Southern University Law Center and earned an
LL.M. taxation degree at Southern Methodist University Dedman
School of Law. He is licensed to practice in Louisiana and Texas.

page4
B y H i l ary B . B on i a l
Looking Back
A Review of the Modified and New Bankruptcy Rules After One Year

LookingBack»BYHilaryB.Bonialpage5
dataissuesfocuspage5dataissuesfocus
On Dec. 1, 2012, Bankruptcy Rule 3001 was
amended, and Rule 3002.1 was put into
effect. The rules were accompanied by new
official bankruptcy forms controlling proofs
of claim, payment change notices, and
notices of post-petition fees, costs and
charges. The rules required an expanded
disclosure of claimed amounts, payment
changes and post-petition charges, and for
creditors to respond to the chapter 13
trustee’s notice regarding the final cure
payment. In the year since they have
became effective, thousands of such
documents have been filed by creditors
and/or their counsel. These filings have
generated litigation and case law to add
color to the landscape the new rules and
forms provided. The following is a summary
of some of the relevant court opinions.
Hilary B. Bonial serves as General Counsel for National
Bankruptcy Services, LLC. and is of counsel for Buckley
Madole, P.C. She is certified by the American Board of
Certification in consumer bankruptcy.
In re Carr
486 B.R. 806 (Bankr. E.D. Va 2012)
The first widely circulated case came out of the
Eastern District of Virginia. The case concerned
the filing of a response to the trustee’s Notice of
Final Cure Payment under Rule 3002.1. The rule
requires creditors to respond, even if they agree
with the trustee’s stance that that the debtor is
current on the mortgage. In Carr, the creditor’s
attorney filed the response and noted that a $50
fee was incurred for doing so. The court ruled
that the creditor could not seek reimbursement
for the fee from the borrower, and that the rule
does not require that an attorney file the
response. The court likened the review of the
trustee’s notice and the production and filing of
the response to the mere filling out of a simple
form, and therefore no fees should be incurred
by the borrower for the creditor’s compliance. If
the creditor’s response noted that the borrower
was delinquent and litigation ensued, the court
noted that the creditor could charge legal fees.

page6
In re Adkins
2012 WL 3860593 (Bankr. N.D.
Ohio Aug. 10, 2012)
Rule 3002.1 was designed to handle the
most prevalent types of home-purchase
agreements, but the time frames it imposes
do not work for some lenders’ HELOC
(Home Equity Line of Credit) accounts. The
Adkins case provides an example where
the underlying loan’s payment amounts
varied from month to month and were not
computed until just before the next
payment was due. Rule 3002.1(b)’s
requirements for payment-change
notification state the creditor must give the
debtor at least 21-days notice of any
impeding post-petition payment change.
The result was a situation where it was
impossible for the creditor to comply with
the rule, so it moved the court to waive the
requirements for this particular case.
Judge Woods reviewed the rule and noted
that there was no provision allowing the
court to excuse compliance.
In re Wallett
2012 WL 4062657
(Bankr. Vt. Sept 14, 2012)
The disclosure and recoverability of attorney fees incurred
for the production, verification, and filing of a proof of claim
has long been a troublesome issue in the bankruptcy arena.
The Wallett decision assists in shedding some light as to the
effect the new rules have on this long-standing issue. In this
case, the creditor included the post-petition attorney fees for
the claim and review of the chapter 13 plan in the claim
itself. The debtor objected, stating that the fees were
incurred post-petition and should not be included in the
claim, which establishes the amount of the debt as of the
date of petition, and that the debtor was current on the
mortgage at the time of filing. The Wallett court ruled that
since the claim and plan review were performed post-peti-
tion, the proper way to seek those fees was through Rule
3002.1’s notice of post-petition fees, costs and expenses. The
purpose of the notice is to disclose any recoverable charges
incurred on the loan after the bankruptcy case is filed within
180 days, of their incurrence.
J an u ary
F e br u ary
M A r c h
A p r i l
M ay
J u n e

LookingBack»BYHilaryB.Bonialpage7
dataissuesfocus
In re Baca
2012 WL 6647733 (Bankr. N.M.
Dec. 20, 2012)
This case dealt with the trustee’s Notice of
Final Cure Payment. The creditor filed a
response stating that the debtors were not
current on their post-petition obligation
but understated the amount of delinquen-
cy. At the hearing, the debtors argued that
the creditor should be held to the amount
originally included in its response, as
opposed to the actual amount of delin-
quency now being alleged. The court ruled
that the creditor was limited to the amount
in its response.
In re Thongta
2012 WL 5050669
Bankr. E.D. Wis. Oct. 18, 2012
The ruling in Thongta involves an interpretation
that may not have been anticipated or intended by
the drafters of Rule 3002.1. The underlying issue
surrounds the effect of a creditor achieving relief
from the automatic stay on the requirements for
creditors to file payment-change notices, notices of
post-petition fees and costs, and responses to a
trustee’s notice of final cure payment. Some courts
have required that creditors continue to send such
notices after the stay has been lifted. The facts in
Thongta were that the creditor withdrew its claim
once the stay was lifted, and this proved to be
pivotal in the court’s decision. Rule 3002.1 requires
creditors with claims secured by the debtor’s
principal residence, which is being treated under
§1322 of the Code to provide and respond to the
notices. Since the claim was withdrawn and the
stay was lifted, the account was no longer under the
auspices of the rule.
J u l y
A u g u s t
S e p t e mb e r
O c t ob e r
N ov e mb e r
D e c e mb e r

I
Have
To
Do
WHAT?
A Look at Recent Changes to
Bankruptcy Rules Forms
BY Rich Haber

IHavetodoWhat?»BYRichHaberpage9dataissuesfocus

page10
T
he Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Rules),
alongwiththeOfficialBankruptcyForms(Forms),are
subject to amendment each year, effective Dec. 1.1
Whilemanychangesgounnoticedbymortgageservicersand
consumer creditors – either because they are relevant only
to debtors or in corporate chapter 11 cases – changes taking
effect in the past two Decembers have been very relevant to
our industry.
The Rulemaking Process
Amendments to the existing Rules and Forms, and the enact-
ment of entirely new ones, come about neither easily nor on a
whim. Rather, each change requires numerous layers of ap-
proval culminating with the U.S. Supreme Court and a statu-
tory seven-month period for Congress to reject, modify or
defer enactment. In fact, changes can take two years or more
to go into effect from the time first proposed.
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure are one of five
sets of federal rules – the others being Appellate, Civil, Crimi-
nal and Evidence. As directed by the Rules Enabling Act of
1934, 28 U.S.C. § 2071-2077, each of these subject matters has
an advisory committee (Advisory Committee) that works on
rulemaking along with the Judicial Conference’s Committee
onRulesofPracticeandProcedure(StandingCommittee).The
Standing Committee and five Advisory Committees “carry on
acontinuousstudyoftheoperationandeffect”offederalrules.
The federal rulemaking process involves seven steps: (1)
proposed changes submitted to the Advisory Committee; (2)
publication and public comment; (3) final approval by the
AdvisoryCommittee;(4)approvalbytheStandingCommittee;
(5) approval by the Judicial Conference; (6) approval by the
Supreme Court; and (7) Congressional review.
First, the Advisory Committee collects, reviews and evalu-
ates suggested rule changes. Proposals come from a variety
ofsources–judges,courtclerks,lawyers,professors,govern-
ment agencies, or other individuals and organizations. If the
Advisory Committee elects to pursue a proposal, it may seek
permissionfromtheStandingCommitteetopublishadraftof
the contemplated amendment. Based on comments from the
bench, bar, and general public, the Advisory Committee may
then choose to discard, revise, or transmit the amendment as
contemplated to the Standing Committee.
Once the Standing Committee receives the findings of the
AdvisoryCommittee,itindependentlyreviewsthosefindings
and, if satisfied, recommends changes to the Judicial Confer-
1. Information for this article was gathered and/or quoted from content and documents
retrieved from the U.S. Courts’ website, www.uscourts.gov.
ence. Upon its approval, the Judicial Conference then formal-
ly recommends changes to the Supreme Court for consider-
ation. Finally, if the Supreme Court agrees with the proposed
changes,itwillofficiallypromulgatetherevisedrulesbyorder
before May 1, to take effect no earlier than Dec. 1 of the same
year. Congress then has a statutory period of at least seven
months to act on the rules. Absent legislation to reject, mod-
ify, or defer the rules or forms, they take effect as a matter of
law on Dec. 1.
Recent Rule Changes Affecting Mortgage
Servicers and Consumer Creditors
By now, mortgage servicers and other consumer creditors
are well acquainted with the significant changes that went
into effect on Dec. 1, 2011. Most notably, Rule 3001(c), gov-
erning proofs of claim, was amended to require an itemized
statement of interest, fees, expenses or other charges be filed
with a proof of claim in an individual debtor’s case. If a se-
curity interest is claimed in the debtor’s property, a state-
ment must also be included giving the amount required to
cure any default. If the property involved is the debtor’s
principal residence, the proof of claim must attach, and give
the information required by, a new official form addressing
this rule change, and also must include information related
to any escrow account. New Rule 3002.1, related to claims
secured by a chapter 13 debtor’s principal residence, sets
forth a number of additional requirements when the claim
is provided for under section 1322(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy
Code. The new rule details required information related to
post-petition fees, expenses, and charges, as well as proce-
dures for determining those amounts and the final
cure amount.
Additional amendments to the proof of claim process for
open-end or revolving consumer credit agreements became
effectiveDec.1,2012.Whentheclaimisbaseduponawriting,
the amendments to Rule 3001(c)(1) exempt holders of open-
end or revolving consumer credit agreements from filing a
copyofthewritingonwhichtheclaimisbasedwiththeproof
of claim. However, if a party in interest requests a copy of the
writing, the holder of the claim must provide the writing
within30daysoftherequest.Thisdeadlinemaybeextended
for cause under Rule 9006.
Even though the underlying writing upon which the claim
is based will no longer be required in connection with claims
based on an open-end or revolving consumer credit agree-
ment, Rule 3001(3)(A) provides certain additional require-
ments for these claims, except when the agreement is se-

IHavetodoWhat?»BYRichHaberpage11
dataissuesfocus
cured by the debtor’s principal residence. These additional
requirements are that each proof of claim must include:
• the name of the entity from whom the creditor purchased
the account;
• the name of the entity to whom the debt was owed at the
timeofanaccountholder’slasttransactionontheaccount;
• the date of an account holder’s last transaction;
• the date of the last payment on the account; and
• the date on which the account was charged to profit or loss.
Itisexpectedthatthisadditionalinformationwillassistthe
debtor with identification of the particular account upon
which the claim is based and ascertaining the timeliness of
the claim.
While compliance with Rule 3001(a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3)
(A), and (e) will be prima facie evidence of the validity of an
open-end or revolving consumer credit agreement claim de-
spite the fact that the writing upon which the claim is based
maynothavebeenreceivedorrequestedbyapartyininterest,
failure to comply with the new amendments could expose
creditors to sanctions.
Also effective Dec. 1, 2012, were minor changes to Official
Form 10 (Proof of Claim), which was amended at section
seven to remind filers to attach the documents required by
Rule 3001(c) for claims based on an open-end or revolving
consumer credit agreement or claims secured by a security
interest in the debtor’s principal residence. Section eight was
revised to delete a direction requiring an authorized agent to
attach a power of attorney if one exists, as Rule 9010(c) spe-
cifically excepts proofs of claim from such a requirement.
Pending Rule Proposals
After all of the Rule and Form changes affecting mortgage
servicers and consumer creditors in 2011 and 2012, it ap-
pears those entities can breathe easy for the foreseeable
future. Between Aug. 15, 2012, and Feb. 15, 2013, was a
public-comment period for proposed amendments to Rules
1014(b), 7004(e), 7008, 7012, 7016, 7054, 8001-8028, 9023,
9024, 9027, and 9033 and Forms 3A, 3B, 6I, 6J, 22A-1, 22A-
2, 22B, 22C-1, and 22C-2, none of which will impact the day-
to-day operations of mortgage servicers and consumer
creditors. Most of the rule changes were proposed in re-
sponse to the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall,
131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011). In Stern, the Court held that a non-
Article III bankruptcy judge could not enter final judgment
on a debtor’s common-law counterclaim brought against a
creditor of the bankruptcy estate. The proposed rule chang-
es seek to avoid potential confusion by removing the terms
“core” and “non-core” from Rules 7008, 7012, 9027, and
9033, require parties to state whether they do or do not con-
sent to entry of final orders or judgment by the bankruptcy
judge, and direct bankruptcy courts to decide the proper
treatment of certain proceedings. While these rules could
come into play during an adversary proceeding or other sig-
nificant bankruptcy litigation, they will generally have no
bearing on mortgage servicers and consumer creditors.
As for the Official Form proposals that shared the Aug. 15,
2012,toFeb.15,2013,public-commentperiodwiththeabove-
referenced rule amendments, these too will have little or no
impact in the creditor space, although they do represent the
first proposed modernization of debtors’ filing forms in 20
years. The impacted forms are debtor-filed documents per-
taining to Filing Fees (3A and 3B), Statements of Income and
Expenditures (6I and 6J), and Statements of Monthly Current
Income (22A-1, 22A-2, 22B, 22C-1, and 22C-2).
Similar to those proposals for which the public-comment
period just expired, it does not appear that any of the propos-
als currently with the Supreme Court for approval will have a
significant impact on our industry either. The proposed
amendmentstoRules1007(b)(7),4004(c)(1)and5009(b)pro-
vide technical clarifications regarding a debtor’s obligation
to take a financial-responsibility course before obtaining a
discharge, and proposed changes to Bankruptcy Rules
9006(d), 9013 and 9014 provide clarification regarding the
response time to motions. If approved by the Supreme Court
prior to May 1, 2013, these proposed amendments will take
effect on Dec. 1, 2013, absent Congressional action.
NBS will regularly report in the Ledger or Proceedings re-
garding proposals, comments and any action on the Rules or
Forms affecting our industries. Please contact us with any
questions you may have.
Rich Haber is a shareholder with Buckley Madole, P.C. His career spans over 15 years in
mortgage default servicing, both in private practice and in-house at a national mortgage
servicer. He works in the firm’s Iselin, N.J., office and is a managing Attorney for the
Northeast Region.

page12
A Summary of the CFPB’s
Supervisory Highlights
Fall 2 0 1 2
Implementing Compliance-Management Systems and Previously
Identified Violations of Consumer Financial law

ASummaryoftheCFPB’sSupervisoryHighlights:Fall2012»ByN.RobertHenrypage13dataissuesfocus
By N. Robert Henry

page14
O
n Oct. 31, the Consumer Fi-
nancial Protection Bureau
(CFPB)releaseditsSupervi-
sory Highlights Report for
Fall 2012, which addresses
the work of the CFPB be-
tween July 2011 and Sept.
30, 2012. The report identi-
fies various actions the CFPB has taken, highlights
currentissuesandproblemsfacingconsumers,and
provideshelpfulguidanceforoperatorsoffinancial
institutions of all sizes.
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the CFPB re-
ceived the authority to supervise many consumer
financial products and services previously under
the control of other federal agencies. As a result,
the CFPB has the authority to examine depository
institutions with over $10 billion in assets, includ-
ing their affiliates, as well as certain nonbank or-
ganizations that offer services such as residential
mortgage loans, payday loans, and private student
loans. The CFPB’s report emphasizes a focus on
consumers through transparent, consistent, data-
driven reviews and assessments. The first half of
the report emphasizes the importance of compli-
ance-management systems, while the remainder
discusses various significant violations by credit-
card issuers, related to credit reporting, and by
mortgage servicers.
According to the report, an effective compliance-
managementsystemshouldbe“designedtoensure
that the financial institution’s policies and prac-
tices are in full compliance with the requirements
ofFederalconsumerfinanciallaw.”Specifically,the
report states that an effective compliance-manage-
ment system should tackle internal controls and
oversight,training,intervalmonitoring,consumer-
complaintresponse,independenttestingandaudit,
third-party service provider oversight, recordkeep-
ing,productdevelopmentandbusinessacquisition,
andmarketingpractices.Whilemanagingthecom-
pliance of small entities with a narrow range of fi-
nancial products will be different from that of a
large financial institution, the CFPB “expects com-
pliance management activities to be a priority and
to be appropriate for the nature, size, and complex-
ity of the financial institution’s consumer busi-
ness.”Essentially,theCFPBpersuadesthatcompli-
ance should be a top priority throughout the
operation, regardless of size or detail. In its super-
visory role, the CFPB has found multiple scenarios
where compliance-management systems were de-
ficient across an entire portfolio including wide-
spread inability to identify and address resulting
risks. The report notes that many of these problems
stem from failing to adopt comprehensive policies,
alackofcommunicationwithemployees,andinsuf-
ficient resources to ensure compliance.
Additionally,theCFPBstatesthatwhiletheuseof
third-party service providers and affiliates is often
a reasonable business decision, the oversight and
supervision of servicers is essential to proper com-
pliancemanagement.Organizationsneedtoensure
thattherisksofservicingrelationshipsaremanaged
and to remember that the “responsibility for legal
violations by a service provider may lie with the fi-
nancial institution as well as with the service pro-
vider.” Failure to coordinate correspondence prop-
erlyservesasaclassicexampleofthepotentialrisks
involvedwithservicersandaffiliatesandillustrates
how easily one can be in violation of federal law
without proper oversight. Like most business rela-
tionships, clear and accurate communication is of
utmost importance.
The second half of the report discusses detected
violations of consumer financial law. According to
the report, financial institutions have provided
remedial relief to 1.4 million consumers and have
adopted procedures to ensure violations do not oc-
cur, amongst other improved practices. In address-
ing credit-card issuer violations, the CFPB has
taken both public enforcement and non-public
supervisory actions. Capital One Bank (U.S.A.)
N.A., Discover Bank, and American Express have
faced public enforcement actions to correct various
A Summary of the CFPB’s
Supervisory Highlights
Fall 2 0 1 2

ASummaryoftheCFPB’sSupervisoryHighlights:Fall2012»ByN.RobertHenrypage15
dataissuesfocus
illegal practices such as add-on products, mis-
leading consumers regarding fees or benefits, re-
taining customers attempting to cancel such prod-
ucts, and other similar offenses. For non-public
supervisory actions, the CFPB has looked to viola-
tions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsi-
bility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act). The
CARD Act attempts to protect consumers from
various unfair credit card practices such as mis-
leading terminology, certain interest rate increas-
es, and excessive late fees. The CFPB has directed
that policies ensuring compliance be established
to rectify failures to comply with requirements of
the CARD Act.
In relation to credit reporting, under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the CFPB may exam-
ine financial institutions for compliance. The
FCRA requires written policies and procedures
regarding the accuracy and integrity of consumer
information provided to credit bureaus. The CPFB
notes that examiners have found multiple in-
stances of insufficient training or understanding
of the FCRA, and as a result, financial institutions
have been unaware of, and have repeatedly failed
to respond to, consumer communications. As a
result, proper training and education of employ-
ees is critical to staying within the requirements
of the FCRA.
Lastly, the CFPB discusses serious violations
by mortgage originators. Under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), residential
mortgage lenders are required to provide consum-
ers with timely disclosures regarding the costs of
the real estate settlement process, and the Truth-
in-Lending Act (TILA) prohibits guiding a con-
sumer toward a loan to increase the originator’s
compensation, unless the loan is otherwise in the
consumer’s interest. CFPB examinations have
revealed “significant non-compliance with these
statutes” and have found incorrect and inade-
quate completions of the good-faith estimate and
HUD-1 settlement statements. Furthermore, orig-
inators have failed to provide accurate interest
rates, payment schedules and various disclo-
sures. Institutions found in violation have been
directed to implement proper policies, procedures
and monitoring to prevent future violations. In
some situations, organizations have been direct-
ed to provide consumers with a corrected HUD-1,
and where customers have been erroneously
charged, organizations have been directed to pro-
vide reimbursement. The CFPB also emphasizes
the importance of being in compliance with the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) so that
regulators and the public can compare mortgage
data “in a meaningful way” and has taken mea-
sures to ensure that organizations work to im-
prove their data collection and reduce errors.
Inconclusion,theCFPB’sSupervisoryHighlights
Report examines institutional compliance with
consumerlawsandseekstoreduceconsumerrisks
throughout the country. It is expected that the
CFPB will periodically publish additional supervi-
sory highlights to address concerns while main-
taining the anonymity of institutions examined.
AstheCFPBpointsout,nowisthetimeforfinancial
institutionstoestablisheffectivecompliance-man-
agement systems, ensure proper supervision of
servicers, and uphold full compliance with con-
sumer protection laws.
N. Robert Henry is an associate attorney with Buckley Madole, P.C., in its
Dallas office. He graduated from Southern Methodist University Dedman
School of Law in 2011 and the University of Kansas in 2008. He is licensed to
practice in Texas.

data
100
200-300
100-200
300
D.C.
national average (-14.0)137.2
State
Filings Per
Capita
Percent
Change1
Nevada 7.69 -3.41
Georgia 7.10 -0.82
California 6.2 -0.71
Tennessee 6.19 -1.67
Alabama 5.47 -1.69
Michigan 5.23 -1.47
Illinois 5.02 -1.23
Utah 4.92 -1.53
Arizona 4.73 -1.58
Kentucky 4.57 -1.03
State
Filings Per
Capita
Percent
Change1
Alaska 1.10 -0.48
District of Columbia 1.40 -0.74
South Dakota 1.45 -0.99
Vermont 1.51 -1.11
South Carolina 1.54 -0.50
North Dakota 1.71 -0.76
New York 1.78 -1.06
Wyoming 1.81 -0.98
Montana 1.92 -1.11
Iowa 1.95 -1.26
data
State
Households
per filing
Percent
Change1
Utah 55.6 -11.6%
Georgia 56.1 -12.6%
Tennessee 57.4 -6.4%
Nevada 58.8 -28.2%
Alabama 67.9 -8.6%
California 70.1 -23.3%
Illinois 71.0 -6.2%
Indiana 71.3 -8.8%
Colorado 76.3 -12.9%
Michigan 78.6 -14.4%
State
Households
per filing
Percent
Change1
Texas 192.9 -7.4%
West Virginia 193.5 -17.5%
Iowa 196.5 -20.3%
Montana 208.5 -17.6%
South Dakota 212.4 -16.9%
South Carolina 225.6 -1.8%
Vermont 260.0 -12.4%
North Dakota 297.4 -22.1%
Washinton D.C. 326.8 -10.8%
Alaska 348.2 -25.1%
As of DEC 2012; Percent change based on comparison of 2012 filings vs previous year
source: LCI 12/31/2012
2012 ytd state-by-state households per filing
top 10 bottom 10

dataissuesfocus
state-by-state total 2012 bankruptcy filings
and percentages of chapter 7 vs. chapter 13
State Total 2012 Chapter 7 Filings Chapter 13 Filings
Alaska 739 82.9% 16.9%
Alabama 27,166 37.3% 62.6%
Arizona 26,837 85.6% 13.8%
Arkansas 12,162 51.0% 48.8%
California 177,979 74.8% 24.8%
Colorado 25,884 82.8% 17.0%
Connecticut 8,016 87.0% 12.5%
Washington DC 822 85.5% 13.3%
Delaware 2,909 71.1% 28.9%
Florida 78,273 72.6% 27.1%
Georgia 62,328 48.1% 51.7%
Hawaii 2,510 75.8% 24.0%
Idaho 6,132 89.0% 10.7%
Illinois 66,700 70.4% 29.5%
Indiana 34,626 72.2% 27.7%
Iowa 6,191 90.8% 9.1%
Kansas 8,793 64.5% 35.3%
Kentucky 19,118 72.4% 27.4%
Louisiana 15,677 34.1% 65.7%
Maine 2,944 85.7% 13.8%
Maryland 22,805 80.5% 19.3%
Massachusetts 16,114 74.4% 25.2%
Michigan 47,980 82.9% 17.0%
Minnesota 16,696 82.9% 17.0%
Mississippi 12,103 50.6% 49.2%
Missouri 25,110 72.1% 27.8%
Montana 1,939 82.6% 17.0%
Nebraska 5,610 69.9% 29.9%
Nevada 16,713 81.0% 18.0%
New Hampshire 3,841 75.5% 24.4%
New Jersey 29,746 78.0% 21.7%
New Mexico 4,643 91.2% 8.4%
New York 39,333 84.1% 15.7%
North Carolina 20,707 43.1% 56.5%
North Dakota 953 88.9% 10.9%
Ohio 49,017 76.4% 23.6%
Oklahoma 11,411 83.5% 16.3%
Oregon 14,699 79.0% 20.9%
Pennsylvania 27,841 68.1% 31.6%
Rhode Island 3,929 84.6% 15.3%
South Carolina 7,839 43.2% 56.5%
South Dakota 1,522 90.5% 9.3%
Tennessee 42,998 45.2% 54.6%
Texas 45,871 43.1% 56.7%
Utah 15,909 67.4% 32.4%
Vermont 990 79.8% 19.9%
Virginia 28,728 64.2% 35.7%
Washington 26,784 80.1% 19.6%
Wisconsin 24,832 76.0% 23.8%
West Virginia 3,800 86.8% 13.1%
Wyoming 1,222 85.6% 13.8%
Total States and DC 1,157,491 69.4% 30.4%
2012 YTD as of Dec 31, 2012.

page18
Bankruptcy Filings by District 2012
Total 2012 YTD: 1,157,491
Western
Alaska
Kansas
California
Maryland
Delaware
Mississippi
New York
Idaho
Nevada
Oklahoma
Arizona
Louisiana
Connecticut
Michigan
Georgia
Montana
North Dakota
Indiana
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Vermont
Alabama
Kentucky
Colorado
Massachusetts
Florida
Missouri
North Carolina
Illinois
New Hampshire
Oregon
South Carolina
Washington
Utah
Arkansas
Maine
Washington DC
Minnesota
Hawaii
Nebraska
Ohio
Iowa
New Mexico
Rhode Island
Texas
Wyoming
Tennessee
West Virginia
Virginia
Central Eastern
7,649
99,336
44,254
10,403
7,318
1,826
5,568
7,227
11,646
4,741
9,868
10,106
11,651
11,251
5,812
6,197
6,247
8,935
17,404
10,538
6,735
21,377
6,910
7,421
35,766
9,250
3,745
36,329
13,859
15,905
8,942
1,780
11,679
13,948
6,051
21,993
5,407
17,992

dataissuesfocus
Source: LCI 12/31/2012
Main Northern Southern
15,098
26,012
3,601
43,417
54,937
13,795
2,323
5,483
8,007
25,554
3,384
16,818
1,671
26,837
25,884
8,016
822
2,909
2,510
6,132
8,793
2,944
22,805
16,114
16,696
1,939
5,610
16,713
3,841
29,746
4,643
953
14,699
3,929
7,839
1,522
15,909
990
1,222
4,419
16,865
30,418
8,508
4,445
20,831
3,868
6,620
9,609
23,463
12,464
2,129
739

page20
For more than two years, uncertainty has
beentheonlythingcertainwhenitcomestoNew
Jersey foreclosures. Cases that were pending
when the affidavit crisis first surfaced in the fall
of 2010 are still stuck in purgatory, while new
filings were halted – both actually and then de
facto – for well over a year. While servicers and
law firms have spent countless hours adapting
to the “new normal,” it appears that New Jersey
mayfinallybepoisedtoreturntoasemblanceof
normalcy for newly filed foreclosures.
Judicial Response to the
Affidavit Crisis
As soon as the first news of affidavit irregulari-
ties broke in September 2010, the Office of Fore-
closure(OFC),acentralizedofficethatprocesses
all uncontested foreclosures in New Jersey,
stopped processing foreclosures for those enti-
tieswhosequestionablepracticeshadbeenpub-
licized. For approximately three months, ser-
vicers and their counsel awaited official word
from the Judiciary as to how the crisis would be
addressed.Whilethepartiesweretoldtoexpect
the Judiciary to address the crisis, it took no of-
ficial action until Dec. 20, 2010. The OFC all but
shutdownduringthatwaitingperiod,notwant-
ing to take any action until getting instructions
from judicial superiors.
Then, on Dec. 20, 2010, the Judiciary un-
leashed a series of actions designed to ensure
the integrity of foreclosures processed in the
SuperiorCourt.Oneactionittookwasissuingan
ordertoshowcausedirectedatsixspecific“fore-
closureplaintiffs”whohaddepositiontestimony
or other public questions as to the reliability of
theirdocuments–WellsFargo,BankofAmerica,
JPMorgan Chase, CitiMortgage, GMAC/Ally and
OneWest (Order to Show Cause). The concept of
“foreclosure plaintiffs,” along with a lack of un-
derstandingbytheJudiciaryofmortgageservic-
ing,theroleoftheservicer,andwhyaparticular
entity is the named plaintiff in a given action,
areissuesthatsignificantlyhamperedthereach-
ingofmutualunderstandingsbetweenservicers
and the Judiciary.
Another action taken by the Judiciary on Dec.
20, 2010, was issuing an administrative order
directed at the 24 “foreclosure plaintiffs” who,
other than the six named in the Order to Show
Cause, had filed at least 200 foreclosure com-
plaints in 2010 (Administrative Order). Among
Foreclosures in New Jersey
Overview of Recent Changes to New Jersey Foreclosure Landscape
Anthony Risalvato is
a shareholder with
Buckley Madole,
P.C. He is admitted
to practice in New
Jersey and New
York and practices
in the area of
mortgage default
servicing. He works
in the firm’s Iselin,
N.J., office and is
Managing Attorney
for the Northeast
Region.

dataissuesfocusForeclosuresinNewJersey»ByAnthonyRisalvato
the entities that were required to make submissions
toaspecialmastersettingforththeirforeclosureand
document execution practices were Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, MERS, and numerous trustees who do
not service loans, such as Deutsche Bank and Bank
of New York – further demonstrating the Judiciary’s
lack of appreciation for the difference between the
named plaintiff and the mortgage servicer.
A third action taken by the Judiciary on Dec. 20,
2010, was the implementation of emergent rule
amendments requiring that counsel in residential
foreclosure actions file with the complaint and final
judgment application a “certification of diligent in-
quiry”(CODI).IntheCODI,foreclosurecounselmust
attest “that the attorney has communicated with an
employee or employees of the plaintiff who (a) per-
sonally reviewed the documents being submitted
and (b) confirmed their accuracy.” Rule 4:64-1(a)(2).
This rule also requires an identification of “the
name(s),title(s)andresponsibilitiesinthosetitlesof
the plaintiff’s employee(s) with whom the attorney
communicated” and a further attestation from fore-
closure counsel that the complaint and all docu-
ments annexed thereto comport with the require-
ments of Rule 1:4-8(a) (New Jersey’s state court
equivalent of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11).
Aftermath from the Judicial Response
The Order to Show Cause issued to the six servicers
was resolved between the servicers and representa-
tives of the Judiciary, and Judge Mary C. Jacobson
entered an order approving the settlement on March
29, 2011. The settlement called for the appointment
ofretiredJudgeRichardWilliamsasaspecialmaster
and the following two-phase approach. First, each
servicer would make a prima facie showing to Judge
Williams that it has process and procedures in place
to ensure the integrity of its foreclosures, including
the execution of affidavits and certifications based
on personal knowledge. Once Judge Williams was
satisfied that a given servicer has made its prima fa-
cieshowing,hewastorecommendtoJudgeJacobson
that she permit that servicer to resume processing
foreclosures. The second phase of the settlement
gave Judge Williams review and oversight authority
for a one-year period beginning when the servicer
resumed the processing of foreclosures.
InAugustandSeptember2011,eachofthesixser-
vicers was cleared to resume the processing of un-
contested foreclosures, after having made their pri-
ma facie showings. However, literally a week before
thefirstservicerswereclearedtoproceed,theAppel-
lateDivision’srulinginBankofNewYorkv.Laks,422
By Anthony Risalvato

dataissuespage22focusForeclosuresinNewJersey»ByAnthonyRisalvato
N.J. Super. 201 (App. Div. 2011) cast doubt and un-
certainty over all foreclosure actions pending in the
state. In Laks, the court held that the statutory pre-
foreclosure “notice of intention to foreclose” (NOI),
required by New Jersey’s Fair Foreclosure Act, must
include the name and address of the investor. Since
the enactment of the Fair Foreclosure Act in 1995, it
hadbeencustomaryforthenoticetoincludeonlythe
nameandaddressoftheservicer–theentitytowhom
the borrower could contact for loss mitigation or to
disputethedefault.Now,thousandsofpendingfore-
closures were predicated on potentially faulty pre-
foreclosure notices.
The Laks decision was thereafter addressed by the
SupremeCourtonanexpeditedfashioninadifferent
casewiththesameissue,U.S.Bankv.Guillaume,209
N.J.449(2012).ThecourtinGuillaumeconfirmedthe
Laks ruling as to the inclusion of the name and ad-
dressoftheinvestor,butsaidthatafaultyNOIdidnot
necessarily require dismissal of the case. Rather, a
judge reviewing the case could fashion an equitable
remedy,suchasrequiringaremedialNOItobeissued
whiletheforeclosurewaspending.InApril2012,the
court issued an implementation order as to its Guil-
laume ruling, allowing servicers to bring an order to
showcauseforremediationofNOIsinabulkfashion.
Essentially, the servicer would serve the borrower
withtheremediatedNOIandtheordertoshowcause,
andonthereturndate,ifthecourtissatisfied,itcould
bless the remediation and allow the foreclosure to
thereafter proceed.
It is now close to a year since the Supreme Court of
New Jersey issued the Guillaume implementation or-
der, yet most servicers have not completed the NOI
remediation process. Certain items that the court
wanted included in the remedial letter required ser-
vicers to generate them manually, and many ser-
vicershaddifficultycorrectlyarrivingatanappropri-
ate amount due for use in the remedial NOI because
servicingsystemsarenotgenerallydesignedtocreate
breach letters on loans that are three to five years de-
linquent, in some cases more.
Despite the issues still swirling around pending
cases, new matters seem to be moving fairly well.
The Administrative Order has been closed and the
emergentrulesregardingtheCODIrequirementwere
amended to allow for the communication to occur
betweenforeclosurecounselandanemployeeofthe
plaintiff’s servicing agent (compliance with the
original requirement of communication with an em-
ployee of plaintiff was impractical and often impos-
sible, as the servicer, not the plaintiff maintains the
appropriate business records). Although the CODI
has been required for over two years, it is still some-
what in its infancy because the vast majority of files
have not progressed.
Looking Ahead
Fromtheservicerside,itseemslikethingsaregener-
ally in order. Most, if not all, have cured their tem-
plate NOI to ensure that the appropriate information
issetforthgoingforward,andpracticesaroundchain
of title, confirming possession of the original note,
and document execution have been tightened up.
Although new files seem to be moving well, there
are still many unknowns that could cause further
delay.Onebigquestionishowthesheriffs’officeswill
deal with the resumption of mass foreclosure sales
–mostlaidoffthemajorityoftheirsalesstaffbecause
theincomederivedfromtheircommissionsdriedup.
Also unclear is how the OFC – which had enormous
systemic issues and backlogs before the affidavit cri-
sis – will respond once files are coming at it in full
force. Some servicers still have not resumed filing
newmatters,andmanyhavenotturnedthenozzleto
full force in cautiously addressing backlogs. More-
over, it is unknown how the OFC will handle move-
ment on pending cases as more and more servicers
get orders allowing remediation of NOIs pursuant to
Guillaume.Finally,itremainstobeseenwhatimpact,
if any, will be had by the state’s new law, effective
March 1, 2013, which allows for a summary foreclo-
sure procedure for vacant and abandoned property.
One thing that is certain is that the “foreclosure
mill” approach will no longer be tolerated in New
Jersey. The Judiciary expects the same care and con-
sideration from counsel in foreclosure matters that it
does from counsel other types of matters. While ev-
eryone benefits from efficiency, speed can no longer
trump accuracy, quality and professionalism. Ser-
vicersandtheirregulatorsdemandthesameaswell.
Asaresult,lawfirmsinNewJersey,andallacrossthe
country, must alter their mindset and processes, or
be left behind.

dataissuesfocushotseat»Bobbrasiel
Bob Brasiel became a member of
National Bankruptcy Services’ executive
management team after NBS acquired his
software technology, PACT. A dedicated
data advocate, Brasiel has delivered
several successful national deployments
to the default industry including, National
Data Center [13datacenter.com], the pre-
eminent source of national chapter 13
data, and PACT [easiestwaytoimprovebk.
com], a chapter 13 automated payment
and claims-tracking software solution
that delivers hands-off intelligent posting
of chapter 13 trustee funds and hassle-
free servicer ledger balancing of claims
in bankruptcy.
Brasiel was responsible for the
design, development and delivery
of the National Data Center (NDC),
including both technical and business
infrastructure. NDC is a national data
aggregator, consolidating information
from 200 chapter 13 trustees into a
single, secured national repository of
live data. NDC has become the trustees’
crowning achievement, second only to
their national organization, the National
Association of Chapter Thirteen Trustees.
For eight years, Brasiel represented NDC
within the default community, acting
as its Consulting Chief Executive and
Operating Officer. He stepped down in
February 2012.
Brasiel brings nearly a decade of
experience focused solely on servicer-
payment application, along with a
career that spans over 25 years in data
management, professional services
and information technology. Bob has
earned several patents in the area of
bankruptcy, including System And
Method For Management and Processing
of Bankruptcy Claims and Payments
and System and Method For Payment
Allocation and Processing of Bankruptcy
Claims (pending).
Over his career, Brasiel has
contributed to several successful
technology startup companies, playing
key roles in senior management. Two of
these companies were ranked among the
fastest-growing privately held companies
in the U.S., according to Inc. Magazine in
1995, 2000, 2001 and 2002.
He earned both an MBA and
bachelor of science degrees from Saint
Mary’s College of California. He was a
certified instructor in the University of
California, Berkeley extension program,
teaching data-management concepts
and holds a California CC Teaching
Credential. Brasiel has guest lectured at
the Executive Information Technology
Leadership Program at Santa Clara
University and spoken at numerous
default industry conferences.
NBS Welcomes Bob Brasiel
NBS Recently Acquired Mr. Brasiel’s Revolutionary
Payment Automation Software, PACT
Interviewer: Larry Buckley

dataissuespage24focushotseat»Bobbrasiel
THE LEDGER: Tell us about your-
self, Bob.
BB:Iwasraisedamongsttheorchards
of Northern California in the ’60s,
about 25 miles outside of San Fran-
cisco. I loved sports, playing on any
team that would take me. My introduc-
tion to business was a paper route that
introduced me to the entire neighbor-
hood. Mom was an elementary school
teacher, and Dad was an entrepre-
neur,beforethetermwastrulycoined.
Idefinitelylearnedmyworkethicfrom
my parents. I have been married to
Michelle, my high school sweetheart,
for 25 years. We have two beautiful
kids. Meghan is a freshman at Denver
University, and Brandon entered into
De La Salle High School this year. My
work family, the PACT Product Team,
includes Catherine, Rick, Shahnaz
and Joe.
THE LEDGER: How did you become
interested in the field of bankruptcy?
BB: Not a short answer, Larry. Suffice
it to say, I find the development of de-
fault technology fascinating. I was
teaching a class in the evening at CAL,
while managing a professional ser-
vices company by day. A student en-
rolled in the program contacted me.
Shewasrunninganon-profitcompany
started by chapter 13 trustees. Her
boss, a chapter 13 trustee, asked to
have a meeting with me. He shared the
trustees’ idea of delivering chapter 13
system-of-record information to the
servicer community. Apparently the
concept had been presented in a study
commissionedbytheClintonadminis-
tration, but trustees were challenged
to define and deliver. After reviewing
theStudyinFinancialPrivacyinBank-
ruptcy, I was taken by the possibilities
of delivering this national solution.
After a year of continuous work, my
team proudly delivered the National
Data Center to the default community.
Following our success, the trustees
askedmetotakeonthetaskofbuilding
theirnon-profitcompany,atrustedrole
thatIcherished.Iwillforeverbegrate-
ful to the chapter 13 trustees, my dedi-
cated staff and data partners, Satori
Associates and Bill Scura, EPIQ, Com-
pu Management and BSS - all profes-
sionals and masters of their craft.
I had the opportunity to continue to
advance my ideas in bankruptcy data
management. With the support of an
industry visionary, I delivered PACT, a
bankruptcypaymentautomationsuite
of tools that has revolutionized pay-
ment application in the default world.
I have really enjoyed these successes.
Most of all, it has been quite satisfying
deliveringtechnologythatpeoplesug-
gested could not be built.
THE LEDGER: As an Executive Vice
President, what type of work have you
been or will you be doing?
BB: Of course, my primary focus is
always the client, so I plan to spend
quality time with our clients. I may
be reaching that executive platinum
status quicker than I had anticipated
this year! I look forward to working
closely with you, Brad Cloud and the
Board to differentiate our company
through compliance excellence, ad-
vanced technologies and industry
thought leadership.
Demand is high for payment-applica-
tion solutions, which should take the
lion’s share of my time. As we ramp
up client project deployments with
the newly acquired PACT and NBS’s
technology, Payment Analyzer, I plan
to develop the Continuous Compli-
ance Model in Bankruptcy™. This
model will integrate NBS’s world
class servicing platform by marrying
workflow, rules management, pay-
ment analytics and data automation
for servicers.
Some clients have expressed a desire
to replicate NBS’s full-service offer-
ings within their operations. I will
guide our team to deliver a suite of
advanced technology solutions as
products that clients may easily inte-
grate into their environments. These
tools promise to deliver required data
integrity, data quality, reconciliation
and repeatability.
THE LEDGER: What do you do in
your free time?
BB: Well, I don’t have a lot of free time
these days, and plan to have even less
as I contemplate splitting time be-
tween California and Texas. Any free
time is spent with my family, whether
that is enjoying a nice pinot in Napa
with my wife, watching my son play
rugby, taking in a Warrior game,
tracking my car or catching a quick
Skype with my daughter.
» continued

Our mission is simple. We strive to improve the
bottom line performance of our clients’ bankruptcy
portfolios through careful, efficient, and client-specif-
ic management of each individual case.
NBS provides nationwide bankruptcy management
services to the following types of organizations:
* Residential Mortgage Lenders
* Automobile Finance Companies
* Banks and Financial Institutions
* Consumer Lending Organizations
* Portfolio Servicers, Owners, and Investors
NBS is a leader in bankruptcy servicing for the
consumer finance industry. NBS is a subsidiary of
Advent International.
about NBS
www. n b s d e fau lts e rv ic e s .co m
SERVICING UPDATES
NBS Announces Acquisition of Payment
Application Technology (PACT)
NBS is pleased to announce the acquisition of Northern
California-based Valley of the Moon Royalties, a software
and services provider specializing in Chapter 13 Trustee
payment transaction analytics.
Valley is best known in the default industry for its
revolutionary default software technology known as
PACT, which combines both servicer data and Chapter 13
Trustee case information in an automated and interactive
tool. PACT removes the manual processing and decision
making of today’s servicing environments and provides
mortgage, other collateral servicers or federal and state
municipalities the ability to automate payment posting
and exception reporting on the activity of loans and
accounts in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy managers and
cash managers have enjoyed huge productivity gains,
significantly improved data quality, visibility and social
responsibility, while reducing risk.
The combination of PACT’s abilities with National
Bankruptcy Services’ portfolio-based bankruptcy
management expertise is a natural fit that will provide
NBS’ clients with enhanced compliance and the effective
use of trained resources to handle escalated issues
without losing focus on the day-to-day operational
tasks. The joint offering allows transparency into the
payment application process during active bankruptcy
cases to ensure compliance with regulatory agencies
and bankruptcy law. This technology further enhances
a suite of NBS technologies focused on compliance and
reconciliation.
Default executives can directly address federal
requirements by integrating PACT into their workflow.
PACT addresses OCC Consent Order requirement
Article XI, Section (k), can provide payment history, FTC
reporting, debtor reporting and will eliminate concerns
about adherence to U.S. Bankruptcy Code 524(i). PACT
serves all collateral types, including secured, unsecured
and priority.
If you would like to recommend a colleague receive
complimentary future issues of The Ledger and our monthly
email perspective, Proceedings, please submit your email
address to the Newsletter Signup field on our Website:
nbsdefaultservices.com.
NBS TRADESHOW PRESENCE
NBS continues to take an active role at many of the
industry’s top events. Most recently, NBS participated at
the AFSA Vehicle Finance Conference Expo in Orlando,
FL and the MBA National Mortgage Servicing Conference
Expo in Grapevine, TX.
Look for NBS next at these conferences:
• CBA Live, March 11-13, Phoenix, AZ
• Auto Finance Risk Summit (AFRS), April 29-30, Dallas, TX
• Collection Recovery Solutions Conference (CRS), May
8-10, Las Vegas, NV
• NAF Association Non-Prime Auto Financing Conference,
June 5-6, Fort Worth, TX
NBS news desk
To learn more about NBS and our free portfolio help
assessment offer, please visit our website and watch our
brief introduction video.
LEGAL BRIEFS
Introducing Buckley Madole, P.C.
In acknowledgement of the passing of Bill Brice and the
retirement of Lance Vander Linden and Max Wernick, the
law firm of Brice, Vander Linden Wernick, P.C. (BVW)
has changed the name to Buckley Madole, P.C., effective
March 1, 2013. A formal announcement of the change has
been sent out to all clients and constituents.
New Jersey Office Opened February 11
Buckley Madole is excited to announce the continued
expansion of its footprint into the Northeast region.
Formal operations at the New Jersey office commenced
on February 11, 2013. The Managing Attorneys are Rich
Haber and Anthony Risalvato.

NBS_Ledger_Bob_Brasiel_Intro

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to NBS_Ledger_Bob_Brasiel_Intro

Similar to NBS_Ledger_Bob_Brasiel_Intro (20)

NBS_Ledger_Bob_Brasiel_Intro