Plaintiffs' class certification motion was heard on June 16, 2005 at the Monmouth County Superior Court of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs and defendants counsel argued the motion in the morning.  Many class members attended the hearing.  The Honorable Robert A. Coogan delivered an oral three hour decision in the afternoon.  The Judge found that plaintiffs had met their burden for meeting the criteria for a national class of numerosity, common questions of law or fact, typicality of claims of the representative plaintiffs, and adequacy of the representative plaintiffs and class counsel.  However, he found that individual choice of law issues that would arise in any attempt to certify a national action would predominate over common questions of law or fact. 

The Judge then took up the issue of certification of a statewide New Jersey class action.  Although the Judge found that the plaintiffs had met their burden as to numerosity on a nationwide level (citing the New Jersey and New York Attorney General press releases that stated there were 11,000 former Norvergence customers nationwide), he decided that he could not certify a New Jersey statewide action at this time because he did not have proofs before him as to how many former Norvergence customers were from New Jersey.  Upon information and belief, there are approximately 1,000 former Norvergence customers from the State of New Jersey . 

Plaintiffs' Counsel intends on filing a Motion for Reconsideration as to this issue as soon as next week with proofs that would meet plaintiffs' burden as to numerosity so that a statewide New Jersey action may be certified.

Thank you for visiting the home page for the class action litigation on behalf of former Norvergence customers against third party finance companies that were assigned equipment rental agreements by Norvergence (Media coverage: Chicago ABC News, The Star Ledger (10/27/2004), CBS National Evening News, ABC News, ABC News Follow-Up (9/21/04), ABC News Washing DC Clip, Forbes Article on MSNBC, StarLedger, Miami Herald (9/26/04), Associated Press (9/23/04). This site is maintained by Counsel to the Class, the Law Offices of Michael Scott Green and Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman. This page is designed to inform former Norvergence customers and other interested parties about the litigation, and to provide former Norvergence customers with a means to assist counsel in prosecuting the cases on their behalf by telling us about their experiences with Norvergence and the third party leasing companies in our brief questionnaire below. By filling out the questionnaire, you further assist us in the litigation, and ensure that you will be notified of material developments.

The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed and served, January 20, 2005. It seeks to void the contracts ab initio, you may wish to view the Exhibits C-F, which includes Exhibit E – a chart clearly illustrating the grossly excessive and unconscionable cost of the leases for the equipment. Exhibit D is the affidavit of Rhonda Roland Shearer which details the allegations of insurance fraud.

Our reply brief to the Order to Show Cause seeking a Preliminary Injunction will give you some insight into our argument as to the “private label” agreement between the leasing companies and Norvergence, their “close connectedness.”

Our second amended class action complaint has been streamlined and works hand-in-hand with the motion for partial summary judgment seeking to apply New Jersey law and the liberal New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act which covers businesses.

We will be VERY ACTIVE IN THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS and have other filings coming next week and are in the process of making discovery requests regarding the insurance issue and other important issues. You may wish to check in every week for updates of court filings on the website and new information regarding possible settlements.

The six class actions in New Jersey, New York, Florida, Texas, California and Illinois continue to litigate and work together to protect your rights. The class action attorneys include: Florida – Aronovitz Trial Lawyers, Tod Aronovitz, Esq., Steve Jaffe, Esq., Barbara Perez, Esq.; Texas – Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP, Lenny Vitullo, Esq.; California – Kendrick & Nutley, Ben Nutley, Esq.; Illinois – Diab & Bock, Phil Bock, Esq.; New York – Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman.

In addition, we are working with over 40 law firms in 20 states around the country (see attorney network file below) that are representing class members in the defense of individual actions filed by the financing companies. We are coordinating document sharing as well to assist in the fight around the country.

As to the settlements with the Attorney Generals (AGs) by some leasing companies, we applaud the AGs for taking action after Class Action Counsel significantly helped move the case towards settlement. Class Counsel moved the case towards settlement by:

1. forcing the organization and identification of the defendants and their attorney representation almost 6 months ago through the filing and service of the first national class action naming 26 leasing companies in August of 2004 (the AGs and the Weir Group requested from Class Counsel our compiled service lists of the defendant leasing companies which we provided for service of cease and desist letters, subpoenas and court filings);
2. organizing and setting up the first global settlement meeting with the leasing company defendants, representative AGs (NJ & FL), and an observing representative of the FTC (Randy Brook) in November 2004;
3. extending in November and December, at the request of the leasing companies such as CIT, the dates for the defendants to answer our complaints, which delayed our case dramatically but allowed the leasing companies time to focus on settlement with the AGs and the class actions, rather than the threatening class action litigation in New Jersey, Florida and Texas, which we thought overall was to the benefit of the class;
4. our investigation of the case which was shared through our court filings with AGs offices, many of whom called Class Counsel and directly requested our papers or other information, including the NJ, NY, FL, PA, MI, CT, CA, IL Attorneys General offices;
5. our organization of the attorney network of 40 law firms around the country to defend individual actions and coordinate document sharing by all of the attorneys,
6. our regular communication with over 1500 class members in our email database keeping them apprised of developments;
7. our communication through our website to class members and interested parties that averaged 10,000 to 40,000 hits a week in September, October, November, December of 2004;
8. our prosecution of the preliminary injunction which in turn forced 26 leasing companies to show their hand and defend the case on its merits for all to see;
9. our survey regarding possible settlement of over 700 class members whose results we shared directly in a letter to the offices of 15 AGs around the country; and,
10. our threat of nationwide litigation by filing 6 class actions around the country.

We are talking with the leasing companies that have settled with the AGs as well regarding settlement and in an effort to determine exactly what the settlement terms mean for the companies as well as class members to assess how fair the AG settlements are for class members. Please be aware that as the releases for the AG settlements are presently stated, when you release “any and all” claims you will be releasing your rights to participate in any compensation received by the class action.

Until we have been able to make an adequate determination as to the fairness of the individual settlements with each company, we will vigorously prosecute the class action against all of the companies named in the action. We will keep you apprised of our investigation and talks in that regard as well.

In a case such as this one, where the damages suffered by individual class members may be relatively small, class actions may be superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of claims by many individuals for whose benefit the action is brought. The expense and burden of individual litigation may make it impossible for certain members of the Class to individually seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged. (Please see N.J. Court Rule 4:32)

Please note that the class action is being represented on a contingency fee basis, there is no retainer fee. If we are successful in the class action litigation, we will make an application to the Court for attorneys’ fees and expenses, which are typically paid out of a settlement fund or judgment collection which is paid by the defendants. Such a fee is first passed upon by the Court which must approve all fees and expenses paid to counsel in a class action. If a settlement is reached, Class Members are afforded the opportunity, at that time, to consider their options and opt-out, if they so desire, to pursue an individual claim.

In addition, if you fit the definition of the class in the amended complaint, you are, by definition, a putative class member. You do not need to “sign up” or “join” in any manner at this time to be included as a member of the putative class. Submitting your information on this website allows us to email you with updates. Those plaintiffs named specifically in the complaint are “class representative plaintiffs” and only one or more are named for each leasing company. The name of your company does not need to appear in the complaint if you are a putative class member by definition in the complaint.

For more information regarding class actions you may review the Class Action FAQ sections at www.lawmsg.com and www.kgglaw.com. There is, unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation regarding class actions circulating and we urge you to review these sections.

COMPLAINT FILED ON AUGUST 16, 2004: The Law Offices of Michael Scott Green and the law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman filed a class action on behalf of former Norvergence customers nationwide against third party finance companies that were assigned equipment rental agreements by Norvergence. The case, Exquisite Caterers v. Popular Leasing USA, Inc., et al was filed on August 16, 2004 , in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey , County of Monmouth . The action requests injunctive relief, barring enforcement of the rental agreements, a declaratory judgment declaring the agreements unenforceable and setting them aside, and statutory and monetary damages under the applicable law. The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Act, breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, and breach of express warranty.

The following lease companies are named in the first amended complaint that was filed on Wednesday, September 1, 2004, a class representative for each company was also named: ABB Leasing, BB&T, CCL (Commerce Commercial Leasing), Celtic Bank, CIT Technology Financing, Court Square Leasing, Crown Bank Leasing, Dolphin Capital Corp., First Lease, General Electric Capital Corporation, IFC Credit Corp., ILC (Information Leasing Corp.), Interchange Capital, Irwin Business Finance, Lakeland Bank, Liberty Bank, Norv Capital (De Lage Landen), OFC Capital (ALFA Financial), Patriot Commercial Leasing, Popular Leasing, Preferred Capital, Inc., Sterling National Bank, Studabaker-Worthington, TCF Express Leasing, US Bancorp., Wells Fargo Financial Leasing.

On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, an Order to Show Cause For Temporary Restraints was filed on behalf of the class action to stop the leasing companies from enforcing the leases or prosecuting individual actions. All 26 leasing companies named above have been served with both the amended complaint and the Order to Show Cause.

On September 2, 2004, the Honorable Robert A. Coogan, New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, ordered a hearing date for the Order to Show Cause regarding plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction for Friday, October 1, 2004 at 2:30PM. On September 16, 2004, Defendant IFC Credit Corp. removed the case to federal court, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton Division). Plaintiffs then re-filed their Order to Show Cause on September 23, 2004 in federal court, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING ON NOVEMBER 1, 2004: A hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was held on November 1, 2004 at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton Division). An Amicus Curiae Brief was filed in the Class Action on behalf of the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and the Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Honorable Stanley R. Chesler denied Plaintiffs’ motion, holding, in part, that there was not a showing at this time, under federal law, that there will be irreparable harm to the putative class if individual class members must defend, in foreign jurisdictions, individual lawsuits filed by the leasing companies. This was not a decision on the merits of the case.

SETTLEMENT MEETING: ON NOVEMBER 17, 2004, in Newark, New Jersey, the attorneys for the class actions organized and had a meeting with the defense attorneys (22 were present) for most of the 26 financing companies named in the New Jersey class action to discuss a possible global settlement. In addition to attorneys for the class actions, in attendance were representatives of the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, the Florida Attorney General’s office and, as an informal observer, a Federal Trade Commission representative. There were approximately 31 attorneys present in total. The meeting started in the morning and ended in the middle of the afternoon.

At the time the meeting was first organized most of the other State Attorneys General had not filed actions otherwise they would have been invited to attend by class counsel as well. In attendance, on behalf of the class actions, were attorneys Michael S. Green, Gary Graifman, Tod Aronovitz, Steve Jaffe, Barbara Perez, and Lenny Vitullo.

The meeting went very well in that the parties were able to clearly delineate for each other their positions on some of the most important issues regarding any possible settlement. Rules of confidentiality during settlement discussions prohibit relating the specifics of the discussion. Counsel for the class actions felt that we still had some work to do, but that there were real possibilities for settlement in the near future. Since that time, as you may know, some financing companies have settled with Attorneys General of some states.

On December 14, 2004, a second amended class action complaint was filed by attorneys for plaintiffs in the District Court of New Jersey (Trenton).

The case was remanded back to State Court: On December 17, 2004, the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler filed an Order To Show Cause instructing that the defendants show cause why the case should not be remanded back to New Jersey State court. The return date for the Order to Show Cause for Remand was ordered for January 10, 2004, in the District Court of New Jersey (Trenton). The Honorable Stanley R. Chesler subsequently ordered the case remanded back to New Jersey State Court, Monmouth County, Superior Court of New Jersey.

January 20, 2005, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed in New Jersey State Superior Court: On January 20, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to void the contracts ab initio (from the beginning). The return date is currently Friday, February 18, 2005.

MORE FILINGS INCLUDING A MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF THE LEASING COMPANIES WILL BE COMING VERY SOON, STAY TUNED!!!

In the interim, we are well aware that many of you have been sued and have appearance dates prior to that time. Please note, rather than have to appear, some putative class members are requesting extensions of appearance dates from the court for 30-45 days to allow them time to obtain individual counsel to defend these claims. Please be aware, we are not giving you individual legal advice and cannot give individual legal advice to putative class members. You may wish to discuss an extension with your personal attorney. We cannot give individual legal advice, but, in general, we recommend that you keep current with your lease payments so that you will not be open to individual litigation. If you choose to keep current, you may wish to discuss with your individual attorney whether you should also write in a letter and on the check that you are: (1) paying in protest with all rights reserved, (2) revoking acceptance of the equipment, and; (3) it is a disputed charge. Please note that we have served a letter of revocation on behalf of the class to the lease companies.

As a result of the overwhelming number of requests from putative class members that have already been sued individually and would like individual representation for the defense of individual claims while the class action litigation proceeds, below please find a link to an attorney network in key states. These attorneys are accepting cases for the defense of individual cases already filed by the leasing companies against putative class members, while the class action continues to litigate. Since we are litigating the class action, we are well positioned to assist those attorneys that will be defending individual claims by the leasing companies. Individual representation in the defense of an individual claim against you will require the signing of a retainer agreement and a retainer fee with the attorney you retain in that particular state.

Please click here to open the attorney network file for the current list of attorneys that are defending individual actions. We will update this list as attorneys join the network and as we hear about suits filed in the different states by the leasing companies. If you are aware of other states involved please let us know. Please note that the submission form below asks for information regarding whether or not you have been sued. Please understand that submission of this form does not retain legal services of our firm or any firm in other states.

We will endeavor to keep this page current and report on material developments. Please check with us daily for possible updates.

Please note that this site is no way affiliated with Norvergence or any third party finance company.