Texas Judge Rules against IFC Credit
In the Specialty Optical dba SOS trial before the Honorable Sally L. Montgomery, Dallas, Texas, IFC Credit Corporation Officer John Estok, CLP, divulged that his company has a $100 million asset portfolio with over $14 million in “up to 800” NorVergence leases with 550 in question: “…for the last 18 months, every month out the door is $300,000 in payments to the banks, and every month in the door is $100,000 or so of cash from settlements and customers who are still making their payments. “ The funds are borrowed, allegedly $9 million from a line of credit at PFF Bank (confirmed by the bank officer to Leasing News), $3 million from two investment groups (from three reliable sources), and $1 million in other bank lines (from court testimony.) In this specific law suit, the “Equipment Rental Agreement” is for 60 months at $543.67 or $32,620.20. After testimony, it is learned that IFC paid NorVergence $11,743 for a $28,000 original invoice figure that yielded lease payments of $32,620.20. The original lease factor was .0194, but in “reality” was .0463 on a sixty month term. This is the first time Estok admits to the holdbacks, which he guesses are over $2 million. The opposing counsel questions whether perjury is involved. The residual of the lease, which was booked as having no value, according to testimony. There was no further yield, but in Texas law this may also be viewed as a “capital lease” and not an “operating lease.” The lack of residual value, whether stated or in practice may have legal consequences regarding usury and/or “consumer” law. Judge Montgomery ruled: "The Court declares that the rental agreement or lease at issue in this case is not enforceable. The Court further orders that Specialty Optical shall recover the following attorneys' fees that are equitable and just and have been stipulated to by the parties as being reasonable and necessary. It is therefore " ORDERED that Specialty Optical shall have and recover judgment against IFC Credit Corporation in the amount of $45,000 for attorneys; fees through trial. It is further " ORDERED that Specialty Optical shall have and recover an additional sum of $30,000 in the event IFC unsuccessfully appeals this Judgment to the Court of Appeal. It is further "ORDERED that Specialty Optical shall recover the further sum of $15,000 in the event that IFC files a petition for review to the Supreme Court of Texas and is unsuccessful in that effort or if it is successful in obtaining review but unsuccessful in its appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas. It is further " ORDERED that Specialty shall recover the furthermore sum of $15,000 for responding to any unsuccessful appeal by IFC to the Supreme Court in Texas, in the vent the petition for discretionary review is granted. “All relief requested and not specifically herein granted is denied. This is intended to be a final judgment disposing of all issues in this case." Copy of Judge Montgomery's ruling: http://leasingnews.org/PDF/IFC_Final_Judgment.pdf Dallas attorney Scott Mackenzie of the Law Office of Scott Mackenzie, P.C., said, “My comments are that IFC committed perjury and have been treated appropriately... ” Scott Mackenzie Leasing News several times on Monday and Tuesday of this week asked Rudy Trebels, President, John Estok, Executive Vice-President, and Gary Trebels, Vice-President for a comment on Judge Montgomery's ruling. Drafts of this story were presented to them. This is what Leasing News received 4/18/2006 3:58:57 PM Pacific Standard Time: “Mr. Menkin - “I represent IFC Credit Corporation ("IFC") and have been asked to address the article you either have or intend to publish containing the comments of counsel for Specialty Optical in that trial. Our firm represented IFC in that trial. I have reviewed counsel's comments and have discussed them with the other attorneys involved with us in the litigation. “Counsel's comments are false, and unsupported by the evidence he presented at trial or the judge's decision in the matter. They represent unsubstantiated assertions he made during trial and which he was unable to support by evidence or otherwise. Moreover, as IFC intends to appeal the trial judge's decision, it is not final or binding upon IFC. “More to the point, IFC considers those assertions to be sanctionable against counsel, and slanderous against IFC. If you assist in slandering IFC's reputation by publishing these these wholly unsubstantiated assertions, IFC will take all available legal steps against you to recoup the undoubted damage to its reputation your article will cause, including suit against you in a Court of appropriate jurisdiction. “IFC is contacting counsel to demand that he retract his statements. IFC demands that you refrain from publishing them. If you do, you will be held accountable for slandering IFC's reputation in the equipment leasing and lending communities.” Vincent T. Borst Askounis & Borst, P.C. The remarks regarding “perjury” and Mr. Estok's opinion of the interview by Leasing News were noted in a previous article, and trial transcripts were included in the story. Please note Leasing News carried the response from IFC Credit spokesman Brian Cascarano, VP of Marketing: http://www.leasingnews.org/Conscious-Top%20Stories/IFC_Credit_trouble.htm |
 |
| 
