Late-night comedian John Oliver buys nearly $15 million of medical debt--and forgives it

Late-night comedian John Oliver buys nearly $15 million of medical debt--and forgives it

ABA Journal Law News Now
By Martha Neil
Posted Jun 06, 2016 04:22 pm CDT

Late-night comedian John Oliver concluded a scathing review of the U.S. debt-collection industry on Sunday with a nearly $15 million giveaway of old medical debt.

"It is pretty clear by now debt-buying is a grimy business, and badly needs more oversight, because as it stands any idiot can get into it," Oliver told his audience on HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. "And I can prove that to you, because I’m an idiot, and we started a debt-buying company. And it was disturbingly easy."

Oliver, who blamed what he said is a lack of effective regulation of the collection industry for abusive practices described on his program, said he and the show spent $50 to create a Mississippi-based debt-collection agency. Soon, they were offered a chance to purchase, legally, $14,922,261.76 in unpaid medical bills.

As the show explains, such debt may be passed from collector to collector, at lower and lower prices. Oliver said his team paid less than $60,000 to acquire the nearly $15 million in debt, according to CNN Money and USA Today.

Oliver then told the audience the debt would be forgiven, and the show is passing it on to a nonprofit that specializes in doing so.

In addition to aiding the debtors, the debt-forgiveness stunt—featuring huge dollar signs, a huge red button and confetti—helped HBO and Oliver. Because of the amount at issue, the comedian said, he has now topped an $8 million car giveaway to audience members during an Oprah show in 2004.

"I am the new queen of daytime talk!" Oliver told his audience.

Slate senior business and economics correspondent Jordan Weissmann quibbled with the value of the debt Oliver purchased. Oliver said the paper it purchased was "out-of-statute," Weissman said, which means it was so old it could no longer legally be collected.

The chances that Oliver’s debt-collection agency’s paper "was worth a lot more than $60,000 are fairly slim," Weissmann wrote. "With that all said, John Oliver likely just saved a whole lot of people some harassing phone calls and potential lawsuits. It was a wonderful gesture. He just didn’t really one-up Oprah." Read online

Also see Slate Academy’s The United States of Debt

Man hurt by SWAT team as he tried to cash check can seek another $3.3M award from Bank of America

Man hurt by SWAT team as he tried to cash check can seek another $3.3M award from Bank of America

ABA Journal Law News Now
By Martha Neil
June 03, 2016

When Rodolfo Valladares went to a Florida branch of the Bank of America in 2008, he was just trying to cash a $100 check.

But after he was mistaken for a robber by a teller, a SWAT team was called, and Valladares was kicked in the head by responding law officers, allegedly sustaining life-altering permanent injuries.

He filed suit and won a $3.3 million Miami-Dade jury verdict, then saw it reversed by an appeals court. On Thursday, the state’s top court said the earlier determination that Valladares had no cause of action was a mistake.

However, instead of reinstating the $3.3 million verdict, the Florida Supreme Court held that erroneous jury instructions require a new trial for the negligence, battery and false imprisonment case, according to CBS Miami.

The saga began with an email about a bank robber circulated to Bank of America personnel, which included a photo of the robber wearing a Miami Heat baseball cap and sunglasses. When Valladares arrived at the branch, he also was wearing a Miami Heat baseball cap and sunglasses but otherwise did not match the description of the robber, an earlier ABC News story explains.

Nonetheless, mistaking Valladares for the robber, the teller triggered a silent alarm and engaged him in conversation, even though he did nothing, then or later, to suggest that he intended to rob the bank, the supreme court says in its written opinion (PDF).

Even when Valladares presented her with a Bank of America check imprinted with his own information and his driver’s license, the teller didn’t correct her mistaken report to authorities that he was a bank robber, the opinion notes. Thus, although the bank argued that it had a privilege to tell law enforcement about suspected criminal activity and hence was immune from suit, the supreme court disagreed.

"Public policy supports a limited immunity for those who make innocent, simple mistakes, but that limited immunity cannot extend to conduct that recklessly disregards the rights of others," the majority wrote, explaining its 5-2 decision. "In the case of Valladares, the bank had ample information and ample time to know the true facts and to correct the false report, but failed to do so. Once there is information indicating that a crime is not being committed, this limited privilege should not extend to a person’s failure to alert law enforcement that a reported crime is a mistake or simply wrong." Read online