12/3/2002

 

Triangle Financial Services

Westmont, Illinois

 

April 23, 2002 Kriti Guin dba Smouth You of Humble, Texas entered into a lease agreement with Triangle Financial Services.  She signed the lease papers and sent

in a check. for $1,065.56.  Another vendor got involved, delivered the equipment,

and then there is a period of time.  Kristi Guin says she never told the vendor to deliver

nor did Triangle Financial.  Leigh Morris of Triangle Financial Services said another

contract was sent, but during this period she moved to Oklahoma.  The equipment was

for treating skin abrasions.  The situation had changed and the original funder evidently

did not want to do the lease to the new address.  In the meantime, the vendor wanted

to get paid and was seeking return of the equipment.  Leasing News advised her

that she should either pay for the equipment or allow the vendor to pick up the equipment

or have the vendor find another leasing company.  Triangle Financial Service refused

to return the deposit, sending an unsigned form that allegedly allowed them to keep

the money if the lessee “breached the contract.”  Whether the addendum was signed

or not, Leigh Morris states the lessee moved and changed the situation.  The lessee

says Triangle Financial Services did not perform in a timely manner and therefore

the deposit should be returned.  Leasing News for almost a month tried to negotiate

a settlement; however, the complaint appears legitimate so we post it.  We have

asked Mr. Morris for a statement many times to post with the complaint, and after

waiting two weeks, this is now posted.

 

 

--Precom “Rescinds” Acquisition of Saddleback Financial's Assets 8/21/2002--

---The Funding Tree Stories--- 

 

--Photoshop Owner: Open Complaint 7/16/2002--

 Applied for a lease, was approved, allegedly, the digital printer was not delivered, original funder closed doors, several months go by, new funder (a bank) wanted more information, provided, credit, formal approval given, vendor did not trust original broker, would not deliver,  deal fell apart, lessee wanted  check back for  $4,441.12  , broker/discounter/superbroker said, no, worked hard on this, plus you signed:

 

NOTICE OF ACKNOWLGEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING
                                             IMPORTANT NOTICE

 

“The attached documents represent a binding legal contract between you ( the Lessee) and ******* ( the Lessor).  The obligation is not cancelable.  There is no right to return

the equipment or to a refund.”

 

“Your next invoice and/or coupon book will be forwarded to you shortly.  Payments

are due monthly on the due date shown.”

 

A third paragraph states: “ Please sign this notice as your understanding and acknowledgment of the notice and your further acknowledgment that these lease documents represent the only agreements between you( the Lessee) and *****.  No other agreements regarding warranty, performance or profits to be generated by the equipment, whether written or implied are in existence with the Lessor.”

 

It does not appear the lessee/broker/discounter/superbroker whom the complaint is

addressed is not in the business of just keeping advance rentals, and appears through all the time and paperwork to have spent much time and effort working on the transaction.

 

A check was submitted for $4,441.12 (“This represents the first and last payments plus tax, $165.00 inspection fee and a $175.00 documentation fee”)

 

The broker/discounter submitted all  the papers, including a commission sheet from

the original transaction that showed a $1.00 purchase option, meaning it was a Capital

Lease. The commission was 15%.  This buy rate for 48 months was .02879 and sell

rate .03310.  The actual contract, used, with the second “funding source,” shows a “sell

rate” of .03589.   The interest may be calculated in several manners, but for simplicity,

let’s say it is over 30% with first and last in advance.

 

Broker/discounter/superbroker says will not return any money, “ I earned it, plus

I have this signed document.”

Applicant’s reaction:

 

Well. I really feel ripped off.

 

“This guy strung me along. Making me feel everything was OK. That letter I

signed made me feel like the deal was funded and I would be seeing my payment

book any day. Figured no risk. Deal is done.  Also, the word deposit wasn't

used, but first and last lease payments. I felt no risk at all until the vendor

called and said they couldn't ship because his Purchase Order had an

expiration date on it previous to the 90 day agreement as stated in the lease

agreeement.

 

“I can't believe ********* and yourself find this acceptable to keep

$4100 dollars for making a few phone calls and sending a couple faxes and

pulling a 40.00 credit report worth taking a small business person for 4K! 

especially since he has the power to cancel the a non-cancelable agreement

after he receives the money from the lessee.  I am fortunate to have found a

much more reliable leasing broker.

 

“One that is very honest and fair. I’ve spoken to several other leasing brokers and they all say this guy scammed me!  They all said he should return the first and last lease payments since they weren’t his to begin with and should have been forwarded to the leasing  company/underwriter.

 

 “This guy is essentially a pimp for leasing companies.  Why aren't leasing brokers regulated by some "higher" agency like real estate agents and banks are regulated?

 

“What this guy has done to me is like me taking a customers roll of film,

having them pre pay for the order.  The film comes out blank and I don't make

any prints but they don't get their money back.  it cost me pennies, but man,

would the customer be really pissed.  All along, that customer would be given

the idea that when they came back in they'd have what they ordered. But all

they get back is blank film.”

 

---- 

 

Leasing News views this as a “civil dispute” due to the signed paper:

“There is no right to return the equipment or to a refund.”

 

Coda:  Certain states consider “capital leases” a loan.  Other states will consider

it a “finance lease” due to a marginal purchase option; some, will even define

an “operating lease.” When they are classified as a loan, the usury law of the state has a maximum interest.  Most of these transactions exceed the interest rate and are subject to not only invalidating the transaction, but also charging damages against the parties involved in the “illegal act.”

 

The Commercial Finance Association has a compendium of commercial law that includes details of commercial usury in each state that is updated at least twice a year by a network of law firms in each state. Irwin uses it extensively and we have not yet found an error. It also provides information on state licenses, guarantees, Tax liens etc.

 

You buy it without being a member and can access it on their website or use a

CD Rom. Their website is: www.cfa.com. The telephone number for the Commercial Finance Association is 212/594-3490.

 

http://easycall.net/midi/hangonsloopy.mid

 

 

---Saddleback Financial, Orange, CA-Salesmen/Vendors Not Paid 7/3/02--- 

Evidently the report of the sale needs clarification, as only the 

assets of the company were sold, not the liability, similar to the sale of SDI 

Capital, among others on the Leasing News The List.

Saddleback Financial was originally sold to Unicapital, and when they 

went bankrupt, was re-purchased, and according to current CEO Phil Walden the  

current owner is Yasur Summara (sp?).  Allegedly Precom Technology 

(sp?), owned primarily by Consilium  (sp?) (Bob Hipple * allegedly owns 95) 

formed a new corporation called SFISaddleback Financial, a different company 

than Saddleback Financial, Inc. They didnot purchase the liabilities. The 

company then is operating as SFI Saddleback Financial dba Saddleback Financial.

While the sale of the assets was made on June1st, 2002, (the date used 

by Walden), employees, vendors, other accounts have not been paid.  There 

are reportedly labor commission filings. Ex-employees have been writing 

Leasing News before the sale about the problems, and Phil Wolden has been 
forthright, it appears, saying as soon as the stock is transferred, 

everyone will "hopefully" be paid.

Today he said, " I would be real careful in what you report as the new 

owners are attorneys."  Hearing that, in the interest of being fair and 

accurate, we print two of the e-mails where the parties signed their 

name and wish to have it posted to the Bulletin Board Complaint section.

June 11,2002

Look up info on the company that bought saddleback.....I don't think we

are going to get paid.  Something is not right here.Douglas W. Cox

June 13,2002

all the guys where in today going over all the

stuff they have to do.....like hiring a sales staff, because we all

left. They where also trying to figure out what to do about Leaseco

holding (owner of old saddleback) cashing $100,000.00 from CPLC and not

paying the vender.....It's been over a month! and the new company

doesn't want to pay that along with the past due building lease (4

months).  It's a mess over there, I just hope that they'll pay me

partially what they owe me on Friday like they promised.....

Douglas W. Cox

(Confirmed still not paid. Editor )

---  

July 1, 2002

I quit working at Saddleback Financial a couple of weeks ago because 

they have not paid me for my last (3) deals that funded, and I had (2) 

additional deals that were docked with up-front monies that the customer pulled 

out of because they were using the same vendor that has not been paid by 

Saddleback.

The owner sold the company without paying back salaries and commissions 

and also kept the funding check from Colonial Pacific that was for my 

vendor.($113,000.00). The new owners came in and said they were going to
take care of me and others and after the smoke cleared four weeks later no-one has been 

paid including my vendor.

The two guys running the office and credit and both idiots who have 

bigger egos then talent, they both come from other failed leasing companies 

and if they stick around much longer they can add Saddleback Financial on 

their resume of failed companies they used to work at.

Anyone looking for a job should stay away from Saddleback Financial, 

they will say what you need to hear and then everything will change..., 

Also, I just got a notice from our insurance company informing me that 

my insurance premium was not paid for after 4/30/02, if you look at my pay 

stub from May you will see insurance deductions, isn't that illegal?

After working there for over 4 1/2 years and being there # 1 producer 

for the last 1 1/2 years I can tell you that I wish I can go back to the 

western days for just a few minutes so I can strap on my six slinger and go 

demand the money they owe me..

Sorry if I sound upset, but after leaving Saddleback Financial a couple 

of weeks ago and filing a claim @ the labor board for not paying me.... 

but I'm just so pissed off that I got my wages stolen from me that I had to 

take some time off and relax.

Richard Shapiro

P.S. I will be moving in about 4-5 weeks and changing my e-mail 

address, I will keep you up to date on my address as soon as I move!

P.S.S. I will be that second person against Saddleback, its all true 

and I don't have any loyalty to a company that so blatantly stolen from its

employees

(Leasing News apologies if the names are spelled incorrectly.  It also 

appears Consilium may only be a partial word of the company, and we are 

not sure about the correct spelling, as we asked Mr. Walden for the 

spelling and used what he provided. Editor) 

---MSM Capital, Irvine, California    5/23/02---

Leasing News Bulletin Board Complaints---MSM Capital, Irvine, California

 

“Platinum Equipment Card”

 

Most of the complaints are settled with our help before reaching the Leasing News Bulletin Board. Most come from the “end user.,” Vendors also contact us

when they have not been paid. When using a browser, our Bulletin Board Complaint comes up very high in most search engines.  Also when seeking information about a leasing company, Leasing News is high on the searches because the browsers work by how many hits.

 

No one else reports the complaints and it appears we are the only place

to go when a lessee or vendor has a problem with a leasing company.

We didn’t plan it that way.  It just happened.

 

We also get “alerts” about brokers, vendors, and funders from readers, who are

quite diligent and are interested in protecting their livelihood.  Perhaps several

want to close a sale by pointing out the poor history of their competitor.  There

also does not appear to be a universal place to go to make a “legitimate” complaint.

 

As an “omsbudsman,” Leasing News generally receives about six or more complaints a week.  Leasing News does not automatically post them. We always obtain the “other side’s” story. Sometimes they are “civil disputes”, meaning the issues need to be settled in a court of law.  Most of them form a pattern.  It happened with Unicapital, United Capital, Metrolease, Terminal Leasing, SDI Capital, just to name a few.  They fall into a pattern.

 

Leasing News also only consider complaints where there can be a resolution or posting on the Bulletin Board.  It is not unusual to consult on Advisory Board on such issues.

 

Here are some recent ones where money was returned (We are leaving out the

name of the company who returned the “advance rents” or “deposit”: as the matter was settled and therefore does not appear in the Bulletin Board).

 

“Yes, this was resolved.  They finally sent a check and it didn't bounce!  I

would not recommend these guys to anyone!!!!  After all the run-around they

gave us, they only responded when contacted by you.

 

“Thanks again for all your help.”

 

Blatonie@aol.com

 

“Kit, I did get a check for the full amount less $250.  I assume it was for

doc fees although his contract limited doc fees to $200.  I figured these

guys to be crooks anyway and was not ready to do battle for $50 so I'll just

scratch them off my lease list and get on with life.

 

“If this kind of reporting is what you like to do, you have my permission

to print this.”

 

Marc Wilaby mwilaby@attbi.com

 

“We finally received the check from ******. It was a cashiers

check so it should clear without any problems. Thanks again for your

help and for the service you provide to people like us.

 

“Thank You, “

 

Greg Vass

gvass@platinumsoundsdj.com

 

“I spoke to who I needed to speak with this morning.  Although they still

feel that we should retain the commitment for his next transaction, I got

them to agree to issue a full refund to the customer.  We are not in the

business to retain deposits;  we don't do business like that.  Please email

me your fax number so I can fax you over a copy of the refund check as soon

as it is issued.  It will be cut today.”

 

Name With Held

 

Leasing News has a lot of these “compliments, “ but we don’t publish them,

as there are settled issues.  Both parties have resolved their dispute.  Most

often the “advance rental” is returned.

 

There are also complaints where the lessee has said he was not longer interested, due to the time length or for other reasons; however, a commitment letter specifically was in place stating that if the lessee backed out, they would lose the “commitment fee.” 

 

While there may have been other “extenuating circumstances,” we have told the

applicant its purpose and it does not appear they are entitled to the money back.

The situation is not common, but it does happen.  There are also companies

who obtain a commitment fee that is not returnable whether the lease is

turned down or goes forward.  Leasing News considers that a “civil dispute.”

 

The great majority of the complaints concern “advance rentals” or “deposits” not

being returned after they have been promised a lease, perhaps have even signed lease documents, but the vendor has not been paid and the leasing company will not return the money.  These are not brokers, but leasing companies who may have their own lines of credit/warehouse leases, or sell them off on a recourse or non-recourse basis.

 

We have a pretty high batting average for settling these complaints, which often

takes weeks to settle.  Sometimes they take over a month. We also are not always successful. Case in point, as Rod Serling would say:

 

“MSM Capital, Irvine, California”   http://www.msmcapital.com/about.html

 

All these complaints were discussed with Mike Cingari, president of MSM Capital. He acknowledged receiving them, the faxes, and there were several conversations about them. In the last one, he said, “ Who asked you? “ “You are ruining the leasing industry?” “I talked to ***** and no one can control

you, and no one likes what your write.”

 

When asked if Mr. Cingari, former president of Colonial Pacific Leasing,

formerly with Pitney-Bowes, had anything he wanted to say, he told

us “no.”  Asked if he wanted us to say he  had “no comment,” he specifically told Leasing News not to state that.  He requested we  print he was “not available.”

 

The first complaint, we were able to resolve:

 

                               Last July I was put in touch with MSM

Capital  Corporation to get a lease for a new machine for my small company.  I

negotiated with John Power (949-453-7500 X7517) for a lease that was to be

approximately $650 a month.  I sent them a check for $1500 and they sent

the paperwork to be signed.  The paperwork said the lease would be over $800 a

month.  I called and cancelled and asked for my money back.  I was told it

would be sent immediately.  Well, it's been MANY months and I haven't seen

a check.  Both my wife and I have called and called with no response.  We

even left a message for Michael Cingari (X7510) who is listed as their President

and CEO with no response.  In the last conversation with John Power, he

said he would send us the check the last week in December 2001.  Can you help us?

 

Robert Latonie

     7 Old Road

     East Granby

     CT

Blatonie@aol.com

 

Yes, this was resolved.  They finally sent a check and it didn't bounce!  I

would not recommend these guys to anyone!!!!  After all the run-around they

gave us, they only responded when contacted by you.

 

Thanks again for all your help.

 

Yes, you most certainly may quote me!

 

Mr. Cingari was not available.

 

------- 

 

(This one we got $1,000 back, but that is all to date:)

               

Leon M. Padell, Filterfresh, Tampa

 

Seeks $7,392 as “amount past due.” This started in August, 2001, when he applied for a $143,190.80 loan.  MSM deposited the check on August 27,2001 and then told them the next day the “bank had turned down the loan.”  On October9,2001, MSM sent another quote on a smaller dollar amount, $20,112.29, but Leon Padell, president of FilterFish, said he did not like the rate, plus where was his $7,392 deposit.

 

“We have been calling them frequently, but 9 out of 10 calls we get their answering machine...When I did get to talk to someone out there, they usually say that they are “looking into it.!”

 

“ On April 4,2002, we sent this information to the Attorney General, Department of Justice, Consumer Complaint Dept., but havening heard back form anyone at this time.

 

“On or about April 10, we received a $1,000 check dated April 4 from MSM without any letter or not or whatever. On the stub of the check, their (sic) is an indication “REFUND PYMT# 1”

 

In his six page fax, he produced the original sales letter from Robert A. Pardini,  the commitment letter, copy of the check deposited by MSM, copy of complaint to the California attorney general,  and “refund payment #1” from MSM Capital.

 

Mr. Cingari was not available.

 

----

 

-------- 

(Some money was returned here )

 

Steven Kaiser, President, County Paving Company, Concord, Calif.

 

“I made the deal with the equipment agency, they fronted me the machine, and Rob Pardini with MSM asked me to FED EX overnight a check for

the first and last lease payments of $2792.08 on 1/15/92 to expedite the lease. After waiting impatiently for three weeks, I get a call from the dealer on 2/04/02. Saying they had gotten a  call form MSM stating we were turned down.

 

“Then I got the call from an MSM agent. I didn’t know coldly(sic) saying we were turned down.  I asked her to send our check back ASAP.=, so we could use it elsewhere. She said she would apply for a new check but it did not arrive. We called our bank and discovered that MSM had cashed our check the first of the week. The equipment dealer was ready to take the paver back but they were suspicious of MSM and waited for us to apply elsewhere (we were approved the first week and funded the second week). After many calls to Rob Pardini, I was told to speak with the boss, Mike Cingari.

 

He apologized, telling me he was in a money crisis, and would not run out of us, and sent us $700. I received one more $700 check.  I am still owed $1,392.08 and not happy.

 

Mr. Cingari was not available.

 

----

 

( We have not been successful on this one)

 

Please remember, that I'm still hoping to get $1,440 back....

We've been through a very nasty and unprofessional experience with MSM Capital, which is not over, as we are yet to receive two month payment with a $100 fee back (total of $1,440), which was promised to us by one of the leasing agents, namely John Power.

 

Let me explain what happened in detail.

 

            I contacted MSM Capital on behalf of my friend (undisclosed) who needed to obtain a lease for the equipment. I was given something like a credit card for the equipment purchase. When I called I was put through to a leasing agent, John Power. Within the next couple of hours I provided him with a leasing application and receipt for the equipment. The next day (!) I received a platinum express agreement with the name of the equipment, monthly payment amount and request for the first and last month payment plus $100 dollars. All the paperwork was completed and FedExed to MSM Capital promptly on April 22. John Power confirmed the receipt of the paperwork on April 19th and said that the check is going to be mailed the same date. On Tuesday, after the check was supposedly mailed, the vendor contacted me with the question about the location of the paperwork, as the machinery was about to be put in production. After that I think I can write volumes on different explanations that were produced by MSM Capital employee John Power, (including his trip to Las Vegas, his secretary's surgery, his own sickness and two extra weeks that it took him to figure out if the paperwork was fedexed or sent via regular mail), (I'm surprised that he did not give birth during that time!), and as you will see later that the paperwork had never been sent out!

 

            Finally, yesterday, May 20, the vendor, who called John Power directly, informed me (not MSM capital! And one month later, after the agreement was signed on our part), that MSM was not interested in the deal at all! I called John Power, whom I could reach ONLY if I pretended to be a new applicant for the lease, who told me that he is not really sure what happened, but the deal did not go through, promising that the check for the first and last month of the lease would be refunded and sent overnight. Hoping to hear from John Power of MSM Capital about the refund of our money I called him today, May 21, again. This time the story was slightly different - he only submitted the request to his comptroller (which could be done only on Tuesdays and Thursdays!) I tried to call the comptroller – she was not in the office at all, so I left a message… When I asked John why I was not informed earlier on the status of the "deal" his only response was that there had been a lot of "miscommunication"... I was concerned about the refund, so I asked if it is going to be the same run-around as with the “deal”, because then, I told him, I’m considering contacting the attorney. His response was very quick: “Do not call me again!” And he hung up. IS THAT NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE???

 

At this point, we are still hanging out in the air by $1,440. At this point I feel like I don't need any explanations - I just need to get the money back and catch up for a month that was lost in obtaining the lease for the equipment that by now has been built and awaiting shipment. My question is: is MSM Capital in business of providing their clients with funding, or are they is business of obtaining THEIR funding from the clients? 

             

Helen Shvedkova

helenshv@yahoo.com

 

Mr. Cingari was not available.

 

----

 

---- 

( nor this one)

 

From:  Benny Hall

 

 

I was referred to you to have my deposit of $700.00 refunded.  This deposit was made with MSM Capital on June 21,2001.  I have talked to several representatives at MSM Capital including the owner Mike Cingari.  I was told to put my request in writing and fax it to them which I have done twice and I have confirmations that they received it both times.  This has gone on too long and I want my funds returned ASAP.  A check can be mailed to Benny F. Hall & Sons, P O Box 62, Hallwood, VA  23359.  If you have any questions, you can call me at 757-824-5551.  Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

 

---

 

 

On March 22, 2002 I Emailed you concerning a refund on a deposit I made with MSM Capital for $700.00 on June 21, 2001 to activate a line of credit.   I was having trouble getting the refund and I still am.  The same day that I Emailed you I got a call from John Powers at MSM Capital.  He was very understanding (so I thought) and said the buck stopped right there with him and he would help me.  The last time I talked to him was about a month ago and he was going to find my original papers that stated I was entitled to this refund.  I explained that I had the cancelled check and could fax that to him.  He told me that he would get back with me and I haven't heard a thing.  I have left two messages for him to call me back, but I have not heard from him.  If you could help me again in trying to get this $700.00 back I would appreciate it.  Thank you very much.

 

Benny Hall

Karen Hall

 

 

(May 20, 2002)

 

No, it is not settled.  I thought it would be settled after I Emailed you the first time and they called back the same day.  Is there anything you can

do to get them moving on it again?  Or do you have any suggestions for us so that we can maybe get some results?  Any help would be

appreciated.   Thank you.

 

Benny Hall

 

Mr. Cingari was not available.

 

----

 

 

---- 

 

Leasing News has some others, but the parties did not want us to quote them, hoping that they may see some money soon.

 

---Molloy and Associates/MonitorDaily Complaint 5/20/2002---

In a competitive market, we flourish, fail, or maintain based on the quality of our products, delivery, and performance.

This is the very essence of a free economy.  Competition is not only inherent, but also essential.  Anyone in the business world who is intimidated by his or her competitors must feel threatened because they either don't have or don't believe they have value to offer. 

 I am quite aware that Executive Solutions for Leasing and Finance, Inc., is not the only Executive Search firm in our industry, and that's just fine.  Our Talent specialists never concern themselves with whom we compete with.  We work on every search with our eyes focused on our clients and we do the best job we are capable of doing. Then, we rely on the results to earn our rewards.  Our competitors can take care of themselves.  The fact that they exist is not something we try to change.  All of this is leading up to a recent exchange, of sorts, that I had with a competitor. 

 Molloy and Associates is a search firm that has been in business many years and has also diversified into a publisher of a well-respected leasing newsletter.  Few people in this industry don't read the Monitor.  Now, most of us receive daily Enews from them.  Like many others, I find their articles informative and interesting.  I pay a yearly subscription for everyone in my company in order to receive the Monitor.

  Here's my gripe.  Molloy and Associates are recruiters.  The Monitor is a news journal.  They are two different businesses and are driven by different ethics.  Journalists print news.  They educate, inform, and disseminate news. They don't edit it.  They don't bias it.  They report it. 

 Every single time I have submitted a news release (each daily E-news invites them), either on behalf of a client of mine or about my own company, the Monitor selectively decides not to print them.  They never respond.  This is inexcusable.  First, common courtesy dictates that they should contact me. 

 Second, if they are journalists, then they should behave according to the code of ethics their industry is governed by.  I don't ask them to advertise my search assignments.  I ask them to print news items.  The Monitor is NOT Molloy & Associates. 

 If they take my subscription money, then they must deliver their product and honor their contract.  Otherwise, they should not accept my subscription and should not spend my money.

  When last week I once again tried to publish a news item (Executive Solutions now has a new division called Legal Solutions, which will specialize in placing attorneys in the corporate and private sector with a focus on the leasing industry) they failed to print it and never showed me the courtesy of an explanation. 

 I contacted the editor, who explained that she understood my position and was conflicted since I was a competitor of Molloy & Associates.  I wasn't contacting Molloy & Associates. Surely, whether or not they print a news release is not going to influence whether my company does business.  Certainly, they know we are out here, as do most people in our industry.  Refusing to publish news items I submit is in violation of the implicit agreement we entered into when they accepted my subscription fee.  It is wrong for them to take my money and then provide a partial product.  This is an Arthur Anderson approach to journalism and a distasteful statement about their attitude towards healthy competition. I believe they must either report all the news, or get out of the news business. 

They must compete fairly based on their abilities, as we are pleased to do. But don't ignore paying customers, discriminate, and try to manipulate the news.  I never even received the promised call from Jerry Parrotta to discuss this. Not following through on a commitment is unprofessional and rude. 

Teri Gerson, President
Executive Solutions for Leasing and Finance, Inc.
908.654.1550   http://www.exsolutions.com
terigerson@exsolutions.com
               

   I agree with Terri that we owed her a response to the "complaint" and that I did earlier today.  As to the content of the "complaint", we simply don't agree that

anyone who is a Monitor subscriber has an inherent right to have a news

release posted either in our publication and/or website - no questions

asked.  And, by the way, the comment about never responding to her news

release submittals is simply not true!  I'll leave it to your readers

to form their own opinion.

 

Jerry Parrotto

jparrott@monitordaily.com

 

Jerry Parrotto is Molloy Associates chief executive and publisher of the Monitor.

“Published monthly, the Monitor has been the leading publication in the equipment leasing and financing industry since 1974 ,”according to their advertising sheet, “...reaching 3,000 leasing companies, 30,000 readers.”

“Each issue provides readers with indispensable, in-depth information supplied by trusted sources in the industry,” they state. The advertisements are as well read as the articles by the entire industry.

“Monitordaily.com is the most visited web site in the industry boasting over 100,000 hits per day. Launched in 1996, Monitordaily.com is the only daily source committed to delivering the latest news and information affecting the equipment leasing and financing industry,” their advertising sheet states. “ ...the first ever email service providing leasing professionals with the hottest industry related headlines---directly to their mailbox---each and every weekday morning.”

---Flex Lease, Plano, Texas Board Complaint January 10/2002---