|
|
Bridge Capital, Lake Forest,CA---Third Bulletin Board Complaint Two complaints have been posted after determining the complaints were valid. Here is a third: TINSELTOWN VIDEO, INC. a BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO franchisee February 20, 2004 Kit Menkin Leasing News, Inc. 346 Mathew Street Santa Clara, CA 95050 Complaint Against: Bridge Capital Leasing, Inc., Lake Forest, California Dear Mr. Kit Menkin: Our complaint is against Bridge Capital Leasing for violation of equipment leasing Standards of Professional Practice "We will at all times adhere to the specific terms of our funding commitments, commission agreements, and/or purchase orders." They did not meet the monthly payment terms, they did not meet the length of lease terms, they did not give us credit on advance lease payments or documentation fees from the commitment money paid to them, and they refused to refund the commitment money of $4,915.59. Proposal: We signed a financing proposal with Bridge Capital Leasing in Sept 2, 2003 for $140,000 with terms of 36 months and monthly payments of $4,515.59, the interest rate is 9.9723%. We gave them a check for $4,915.59 for the Commitment Payment which may be applied to the 1St and documentation. Lease #1: On Oct 9,2003 we received from Bridge Capital a lease with Axis Capital in the amount of $22,151.14 for 36 months with the following terms: Lease amount: $22,151.14 Monthly payment: $ 838.90 Term: 36 months Interest is: 21.382% Documentation fee: $125.00 Check to Axis for: $1,802.80 The interest is 21.382% or over twice the amount on the proposal of 9.973%. None of the $4,915.59 was credited to the 1st payment or the documentation fee. We signed this lease and were assured by Bridge Capital that they would finance the next one in-house with rates consistent with the proposal. Lease #2: On Oct 23, 2003 we received a 2nd lease from Bridge Capital with Financial Pacific Leasing in the amount of $36,334.40 with the following terms:
The interest is 31.697% or over three times the amount on the proposal of 9.973%. None of the $4,915.59 was credited to the 1st payment or the documentation fee. The term was for 24 months and not 36 months as in the proposal. We refused to sign this lease and requested a refund of our $4,915.59 — THEY REFUSED. Letter to Bridge: On Nov 13, 2003 we sent a letter to Patty Warner, Comptroller of Bridge Capital Leasing requesting they return the $4,915.59, they responded with a letter dated Nov 17, 2003 and refused to return our funds. Enclosed please find the following to support our complaint: 1) Bridge Capital Proposal for $140,000 2) Copy of check to Bridge Capital for $4,915.59 3) Axis Lease for $22,151.14 and amortization chart 4) Copy of check to Axis for $1,802.80 5) Financial Pacific Lease for $36,334.40 and amortization chart 6) Copy of letter to Bridge Capital to return funds 7) Copy of letter from Bridge Capital refusing to return funds Thank you for you help to resolve this complaint. The interest is 31.697% or over three times the amount on the proposal of 9.973%. None of the $4,915.59 was credited to the 1st payment or the documentation fee. The term was for 24 months and not 36 months as in the proposal. We refused to sign this lease and requested a refund of our $4,915.59 — THEY REFUSED. Letter to Bridge: On Nov 13, 2003 we sent a letter to Patty Warner, Comptroller of Bridge Capital Leasing requesting they return the $4,915.59, they responded with a letter dated Nov 17, 2003 and refused to return our funds. Enclosed please find the following to support our complaint: 8) Bridge Capital Proposal for $140,000 9) Copy of check to Bridge Capital for $4,915.59 10) Axis Lease for $22,151.14 and amortization chart 11) Copy of check to Axis for $1,802.80 12) Financial Pacific Lease for $36,334.40 and amortization chart 13) Copy of letter to Bridge Capital to return funds 14) Copy of letter from Bridge Capital refusing to return funds
Gary Leonhard Enclosures 1354 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY 101, SUITE D Here is a copy of the agreement: http://two.leasingnews.org/temporary/bridge_capital-tinseltown_video.pdf In correspondence with both Bridge Capital Leasing President Paul Behechti and counsel Val Stiefel, they provided this letter: November 17, 2003 Gary Leonhard TinselTown 1354 North Coast Highway 101 Suite D Leucadia, CA 92024 RE: TinselTown Video Dear Mr. Leonhard: We are in receipt of your letter dated November 11, 2003 and wish to respond in kind. First, your company's payment of $4,915.59 was consideration for the arrangement of financing by Bridge Leasing. When Tinseltown accepted and agreed to the lease proposal presented via the letter agreement dated September 2, 2003 (and paid $4,915.90), all that was required in order to fulfill the agreement was full performance by Bridge Capital Leasing. Under the terms of the agreement, Bridge Capital's obligation wasto provide a final approval related to the transaction. Bridge Leasing performed and fulfilled its obligation when the underwriting department issued final approval of a financing package to Tinseltown on June 24. Consequently, and again in accordance with the terms of the letter agreement dated September 9, once this final approval was given, "all money paid to BCL (was) deemed earned " The fact that the proposed lease applied the initial payment towards first and last months' payments does not excuse Tinseltown from performing his obligations under theagreement, nor does it allow for refund of the payment in the event Tinseltown no longer wishes to proceed with the financing. In the course of acquiring final financing terms, based on our underwriting criteria and the overall and actual credit worthiness of your client, Bridge Capital offered available competitive lease terms issued by industry lenders, and therefore fulfilled its obligations under the agreement. At no point was Tinseltown offered or guaranteed a 10% rate. Consequently, and as explained above, the money was deemed earned once Bridge Capital performed its obligation to present the final financing approval and terms. As such, Bridge Leasing has earned the money for services rendered, and there still stands a competitive financing package that your client is welcome to enjoy. Based on conversations with your account reps, if you were to proceed with the financing of both financings, you would enjoy a "blended rate" that would be in the 10% neighborhood. We would still be amenable to securing this or finding alternative financing packages for your client, in which case the payments already made to Bridge Leasing would apply to any other financing package we would offer.
25391 COMMERCENTRE DRIVE, FIRST FLOOR, LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 The November 17th letter acknowledges the agreement, which basically states the terms and conditions, and should the lease not occur, Bridge Capital is entitled to the documentation fee. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Paul Behechti and counsel Val Stiefel the November 17,2003 letter was discussed. There were several other conversations, e-mail, and fax correspondence, with the stipulation not for publication. Since this was the third complaint, we contacted the President and CEO of Bridge Capital, Mike Aharmi, both by e-mail, fax, and telephone. This is their website: Their information: http://www.bridgeleasing.com/html/index.html Here is a video from Mr. Aharmi on the web site http://www.two.leasingnews.org/video/mikeahmari.wmv Leasing News asked Mr. Aharmi for a statement several times, and this is what we received: BRIDGE March 18, 2004 Kit Menkin Leasing News Via fax: 800-727-3851 RE: Complaints against Bridge Capital Leasing Dear Mr. Menkin It was a pleasure speaking with you on the phone today, and we thank you for bringing to our attention the complaints about Bridge Capital Leasing. In accordance with company policy, at this time Bridge Capital Leasing will make no statement regarding these complaints in a public forum. We are prepared only to discuss these matters with individuals or entities authorized by proposed Lessees, and qualified to make legal arguments on their behalves. Furthermore, since youalso are the principal of a leasing company, we find that the publishing of complaints and "responses" hardly constitutes an unbiased forum, and may be perceived by some as a. conflict of interest in obtaining information on the inner workings of other leasing companies. Although neither motivenor malice need to be proved in order to have a claim for slander, we will be keeping a close eye on your publication to ensure the accuracy of your reporting. As general counsel for Bridge Capital Corporation and all its subsidiaries, I request that you direct all communiqués, including but not limited to emails, phone calls and letters, through myself only, This letter may only be published by leasing News in its entirety without any additions or deletions.
25381 COMMERCENTRE DRIVE, FIRST FLOOR, LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 This is from our Leasing News Policy, stated in every newsletter, plus on our web site: “American Leasing is a separate company than Leasing News and does not receive any remuneration or “leads” or “business” in any manner from Leasing News. “We may refer to a specific company, for instance, if they are looking for a captive vendor program, or niche equipment. If a broker looking for a funding source, we may make a referral, but never with any “strings” or “benefit” to American Leasing. American Leasing is a small lessor/broker doing business primarily in Silicon Valley. The company does not have a “broker program” or pay fees or referrals to a “broker.” We “bend over backwards” to keep both companies two distinct entities to avoid any journalist conflicts. “Mr. Menkin sits on several board of directors and advisory boards. Should there be any conflict, it is so noted in the story. If there is a financial interest in the company, it is also so noted in the story as a “disclaimer.” http://www.leasingnews.org/policy.htm from Complaints Bulletin Board: http://www.leasingnews.org/Conscious-Top%20Stories/bridge_capital.htm
|
||||||||
|
