that in fact interest was accruing daily at a rate equivalent to 500% per year and that defendants have .tried to collect this interest from her. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court granted the motion. The court recognized that district courts are divided on the question whether a debt collector must disclose that the amount of the debt will increase over time due to interest of fees. Compare, e.g., Jones v. Midland Funding, LLC, 755 F.Supp.2d 393, 397-98 (D.Conn.2010) (requiring debt collectors to disclose the fact that interest is accruing and inform consumers of the applicable interest rate),. adhered to on reconsideration, No. 3:08-CV-802 RNC, 2012 WL 1204716 (D.Conn. Apr. 11, 2012), and Dragon v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 483 F.Supp.2d 198, 203 (D.Conn.2007) (<HOLDING>), with Pifko v. CCB Credit Servs., Inc., No.
holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that collection notice was potentially misleading because least sophisticated consumer could conclude that total amount stated as due was due at any time when in fact it was increasing holding that the overall effect of advertisements was misleading in violation of section 10b despite fact that no single statement of material fact was false holding that a creditor who had received actual notice of a bankruptcy proceeding through his counsel did not suffer a due process violation because he had notice in time to file a complaint or at least to file a timely motion for an extension of time holding that statutory provision that reduced retroactively amount of good time reduction to prisoners sentences was not saved by potentially ameliorative provisions enacted at the same time because their application was purely discretionary