Story Series: debt settlement
Law Firm Sued Over “Debt Relief” Practices
July 9, 2024Another alleged “debt relief” law firm is under fire by a small business lender. This time the lender is National Funding and their latest lawsuit names not only a borrower that breached a loan agreement as a defendant but also a New York based law firm named J.S. Fritzon Law Firm, P.C.
According to the Complaint filed in San Diego County of California’s Superior Court, after the defendant law firm identifies National Funding’s customers, they contact them, offer to provide debt relief services, and attempt to persuade them to breach their obligations.
“As part of this effort, Non-Borrower Defendants routinely make misleading representations to National Funding’s customers, including by promising to save them money by settling their obligations to National Funding for a discounted amount when Non-Borrower Defendants have no legitimate basis for making such a promise and no reasonable expectation of being able to fulfill such a promise,” it says.
Among the causes of action against that defendant in particular are Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Unfair Competition, Conducting Business as a Prorater Without a License, Unauthorized Practice of Law, and Violation of Uniform Voidable Transfer Act.
The case number is 37-2024-00021246-CU-BC-CTL.
“MCA Debt Settlement” Company Sued
May 7, 2024A firm that offers to “restructure corporate debt primarily MCA or Merchant Cash Advance debt” was sued last month by a small business owner for fraudulent inducement, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties, and for a declaratory judgment. Corporate defendants include MCA Resolve LLC and Coastal Debt Resolve (ABSM LLC) in addition to several individuals.
The alleged scheme, as laid out by plaintiff, asks business owners to pay huge fees to the debt settlement firm all while being forced to default on their business financing agreements on the hope that they might eventually get a proposal to settle for far less than the amount agreed. In this case, plaintiff explained that the result was that they actually ended up owing more because of how much defendants were charging. The case was filed in the Superior Court of Arizona and can be viewed here.
Notably, MCA Resolve LLC is currently being sued by two unrelated MCA funding companies in the New York Supreme Court.
Stop the Debt Settlement People, Funders Come Up With Merchant-Friendly Alternative
April 3, 2024
Are debt settlement “advisors” interfering with your contracts and putting your merchants in a bad spot? The industry is now taking the reins on a solution. It’s called GreenLedger, a platform for funders to work together on resolving a merchant’s situation with no debt settlement middlemen encouraging an intentional default, taking fees, and making false promises.
Founded by Elevate Funding CEO Heather Francis, who aims to eventually make it a non-profit, merchants would go to this industry-collaborative platform, indicate who they have open contracts with, and the platform would notify the funders directly.
“From there, the primary points of contact at each funder can get together to come up with a more specific and comprehensive payment plan that works with the merchant’s needs,” said Francis. “GreenLedger’s mission is to work directly with our small business clients to stabilize their revenue-based financing arrangements and avoid breaching their agreements, eliminating the need for potentially predatory middlemen.”
The platform has already been generating interest.
“As an attorney deeply committed to the financial empowerment of small and medium-sized businesses, I am thrilled to endorse Elevate Funding’s creation of GreenLedger,” said industry attorney Patrick Siegfried. “This initiative represents a pivotal step in our ongoing battle against the increasing prevalence of unscrupulous entities in the commercial finance debt settlement industry. Far too often, these bad actors employ deceptive sales tactics and bind clients with unfair contracts, leading not to the promised debt relief but to further financial strain for small businesses. GreenLedger, with its dedication to transparency and integrity, stands as a true avenue for business owners seeking legitimate and effective financial solutions. Its mission to root out malpractices and safeguard the interests of small businesses is not just commendable but essential in today’s challenging economic landscape.”
To learn how you can participate and cut the debt settlement people out of the picture, attend this webinar on April 16th.
Got an Offer to Settle Your Debts? Be Careful!
May 25, 2023
“Imagine a small business owner who is getting calls and demand letters and lawsuits from their creditors,” said Steven Zakharyayev, Managing Attorney at Law Offices of Steven Zakharyayev, PLLC, “then this debt relief company comes along and claims they can help. Desperation makes them an easy target.”
Unlawful debt settlement schemes can take many forms but a common one is a third party enticing a merchant into believing that they can resolve their debts at a discounted price when there is no basis for that to be true.
“[The scammers’] marketing preys on small business owners who may be in tough financial situations with ‘pie in the sky’ promises,” Zakharyayev said.
Common red flags indicating a potential fraudulent marketing pitch include requests for upfront payments, down payments, or monthly installments. Third party assistance in and of itself is not necessarily unlawful but the debtors should conduct thorough due diligence on any proposal they receive.
“Consumers can look up the debt negotiation companies and find out if they are legit and how they work by looking up reviews and searching up the company,” said Manny Yosipov, CEO at Advanced Recovery Group.
Debtors should also take care to understand whom it is they are even speaking with. Sometimes the identity of the person calling to address a debt is not clear. Is it a creditor? A collections firm acting on behalf of a creditor? Or a third party with no relationship to the creditor at all? This can become all the more confusing when more than one communcations channel is being used.
“The amended FDCPA allows debt collectors to use newer technologies, such as email and text messages, to communicate with consumers regarding their debts, subject to certain limitations, which protect consumers against harassment or abuse,” said Yosipov.
Meanwhile, Zakharyayev emphasizes the importance of creditors informing clients about the types of communications they might receive from third-party scammers and the unrealistic promises these scammers may make to settle their debt. Merchants should be aware that debt settlement companies often charge significant fees to settle debts that merchants could likely handle themselves.
“Businesses and their customers are usually better off in the long run if they communicate and are transparent with their financial records,” said Zakharyayev. “Once the debt settlement companies get involved, the situation gets more complicated and ironically less likely to settle.”
Funders Planning Mounted Response to Debt Settlement Schemers
December 30, 2021
Debt settlement companies are still using their tricky tactics, according to Efraim Kandinov of Fundfi Merchant Funding. He says a large group of funders are currently strategizing a mounted response to activity he believes is illicit.
Fundfi’s lawyers have already begun to send out Cease and Desists to the companies that have been telling his clients to breach their contracts and stop paying. He says it has become such an issue, that merchants in other parts of the country have begun ignoring his calls because of his New York area code, which they now associate with this kind of scam.
“[The merchant] said,‘I’m having all these New York numbers specifically, call me and plead with me ‘why are you doing this to yourself? Stop paying. Don’t pay these guys, pay me a fee and I’ll take care of it.’”
”This merchant was smart enough to say, ‘hey, this sounds like a scam’ and gave me the rundown.”
According to Kandinov, his company is one of the many that merchants are being told not to pay, while there are other funders who the debt settlers instruct to keep paying.
“They’re specifically targeting certain funders,” said Kandinov. “Whether they’ve been sued before by other ones, or have agreements, I have no idea. However I’m starting to realize, they’re specially targeting certain companies.”
War on Debt Settlement Continues: 16 Defendants Sued in RICO Case
September 6, 2018
Fourteen individuals and two companies (including Decision One Debt Relief) were sued by Funding Metrics in Federal court last month for allegedly “conducting a nationwide illegal debt restructuring scheme through numerous acts of mail and wire fraud.”
The suit, which stems from the defendants’ interference with Funding Metrics’ merchant cash advance customers, makes six claims, among them financial damages resulting from state and federal crimes. Per the complaint:
“Defendant Decision One (along with its affiliate/alter ego D1 Servicing) fraudulently presents itself as being able to renegotiate and restructure merchant agreements with Plaintiff and other funding companies. It has established a deceptive business practice of making misleading and often outright false representations to merchants under contract with Plaintiff promising that, with its help, these merchants will save money on those contracts by defaulting on them. Decision One tells merchants that they can safely stop paying cash advance funding companies like Plaintiff; that it will go to work for them promptly; that it can reduce their debt by 60-80% or more; and that they will be provided with a Veritas insurance plan to cover legal expenses arising from their defaults, once cash advance companies exercise their rights under agreements with their merchants, as they inevitably will. Based on these misrepresentations, the merchants default on their contracts with their funders – that is, at Decision One’s direction, they stop paying their funders and instead pay Decision One – although Decision One does not even expect to achieve results for the merchants. The result is a fraud on the merchants and tortious interference with the contracts Plaintiff have with them.”
The suit is just the latest bomb dropped on the exploding debt settlement industry. deBanked began covering the controversy surrounding debt settlement in late 2016 after the owner and employees of an upstate New York debt settlement company were arrested for charging merchants to restructure their merchant cash advances and then not actually performing any services. The owner, Sergiy Bezrukov, was charged with money laundering, bank fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud. Bezrukov has been locked away in jail for almost two years awaiting trial. He is facing a maximum of 30 years. Two of his employees pled guilty, Vanessa Cardona to bank fraud and Dustin Walker to conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
Since then, nearly a dozen major lawsuits have been filed by merchant cash advance companies against other debt settlement companies that are alleged to be carrying out similar schemes. One of those sued companies, NJ-based Corporate Bailout LLC, was featured on the cover of the New York Post last summer for being “the craziest office in America.” Corporate Bailout was sued by both Yellowstone Capital and Everest Business Funding which later resulted in a very public settlement agreement that forced Corporate Bailout to fork over $500,000 to the two MCA companies.
Decision One Debt Relief, sued now by Funding Metrics, was also originally a co-defendant alongside MCA Helpline in a lawsuit filed by Everest Business Funding earlier this year. In February, after determining the two were not related, Everest dropped the claims against Decision One only. The suit against MCA Helpline is still pending.
Around that same time, a representative for Decision One revealed to deBanked that the company was on track to be doing more than $100 million a year in business.
Bezrukov, by contrast, who currently resides in a Niagara County New York jail, is accused of having only obtained $1.2 million throughout his entire debt settlement venture’s existence. Although Decision One is not being charged criminally, the private civil suit alleges damages caused by a violation of criminal statutes including RICO.
The Funding Metrics suit against Decision One was filed in the Southern District of Florida under ID# 9:18-cv-81061.
Details Emerge in Florida Lawsuit Against Corporate Debt Advisors
August 9, 2018
A debt settlement company being sued by Itria Ventures in Miami-Dade County, FL was asked to prove its claim that it has managed over $1.5 billion in total debt, court records show. That company, Corporate Debt Advisors (CDA), advertises that it provides debt relief for small business owners.
CDA responded to Itria’s request on June 29th with information relating to just two employees, Tony Shea and John Philbin, who combined through their previous experience have purportedly managed $1,584,000,000 of debt.
Not mentioned in their response is that each individual is prohibited from engaging in debt settlement services with Florida consumers where Corporate Debt Advisors is located.
According to the Office of the Attorney General, both Shea and Philbin previously and independently settled with the State after being investigated for running questionable debt settlement businesses. (See here and here)
In the lawsuit filed against CDA by Itria, it’s alleged that CDA is advising merchants to commit fraud by moving money owed to Itria to a new secret hidden bank account at a local bank in Florida where it will be out of reach from Itria.
This is not the first time Corporate Debt Advisors has been sued. In early July, a competitor to Itria, High Speed Capital, petitioned a New York court to turn over funds it believes CDA has in its possession for unlawful budget planning services rendered to a Florida-based business.
Collector Says “No” to Debt Settlement Companies That Want His Data
June 19, 2018
Debt settlement companies often find their leads by scouring through UCC filings, or publicly available forms that a creditor files to give notice that it may have rights to the property of a debtor. In the case of a small business, perhaps the refrigerators in a restaurant.
“[Looking through UCC filings] is a way of getting access to businesses that obviously owe somebody some money for their business,” said Shawn Smith, founder and CEO of Dedicated Commercial Recovery, a commercial collections company in Roseville, Minnesota.
But Smith told deBanked about another approach that debt settlement companies have taken to obtain leads of struggling businesses. He said they come to him.
“Who has a ton of accounts of struggling business owners?” Smith said. “Debt collection agencies that are working on behalf of funding sources. So [we] have like a list of all lists.”
Smith said that he gets approached by debt settlement companies looking for the contact information of struggling companies.
He always says “no.”
“They’re coming to me and saying ‘Hey, you know, for any merchant you send us that’s struggling, if we start working with them to help settle their debts, we will give you a large portion of the fee we make on settling that debt,’” Smith said. “And we of course would never do that.”
Dedicated works in two areas of collections: merchant cash advance and equipment leasing. In both cases, its goal is to recoup money for its clients, either merchant cash advance companies or equipment leasing companies.
Unlike this arrangement, a debt settlement company is not hired by a funding company. Instead, according to Smith, the debt settlement company searches for a struggling company, instructs the merchant to stop paying the funder and then approaches the funder with a settlement deal for often a fraction of what the funder is entitled to under the agreed upon deal. Smith said that settlement companies almost always propose to the funder: 20 percent of the value of the deal over five years.
Smith said he does work with debt settlement companies if they approach him representing a small business that can’t pay its bills, as long as what’s offered is within the range of what the funding company client would accept. Otherwise it’s a no-go. While Smith doesn’t share the names of struggling small businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the event of repayment, he’s convinced that this happens as he continues to be approached.
Founded by Smith in 2015, Dedicated has a staff of 18.
