|
|
Green to file Appeal on NorVergence Class Action Denial
Leasing News has been trying to obtain information on the NorVergence Class action hearing last week, but has been “frozen out,” due to our editorial position in supporting the 23 states attorneys general plus District of Columbia settlement judgments, anywhere from 80% to 90% of the contract plus insurance, tax, late charges and other fees, depending on the state and its laws. Part of the settlement includes waiving charges against lessors and not participating in class action suits as headed by the Michael Scott Green, among others. Announcement from Mr. Green: “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. At this point default judgments for “not showing up” have been rendered in Illinois, Texas, and Massachusetts making contracts generated by NorVergence as being “fraudulent in nature,” therefore null and void. If such a ruling should be handed down in the U.S.District court, it would apply to all NorVergence “Equipment Rental Contracts” in the district court the ruling is made. “Plaintiffs' Counsel intends on filing a Motion for Reconsideration as to this issue as soon as (this) week with proofs that would meet plaintiffs' burden as to numerosity so that a statewide New Jersey action may be certified.” Norvergence Customer Legal Coop www.njnorvergenceclassaction.com MICHAEL SCOTT GREEN, ESQ. On the web@: www.lawmsg.com www.njnorvergenceclassaction.com It should be noted that the 11,000 NorVergence leasing customers originated in the corporation's press releases. Perhaps when the bankruptcy proceeding is further along, a more accurate number will be made available. As evidenced by the recent attorneys generals settlements, the number of active leases will be much less than the number claimed in NorVergence press releases. It also should be noted, New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey to date has made settlements with – General Electric Capital Corp. (“GE”) and CIT Technology Financing Services, Inc. (“CIT”) – that will result in the forgiveness of nearly $8 million in payments owed by New Jersey customers under long-term service agreements with NorVergence, Inc., a bankrupt New Jersey telecommunications company. This may affect the class action suit in New Jersey. Here is AG Harvey's press release: In the meantime, the Federal Trade Commission awaits the courts response from the NorVergence Bankruptcy Receiver on its filing on November 4, 2004 in the United States District Court in New Jersey, basically contending NorVergence had no long-term contracts with telecommunications providers and no way to assure the long-term discounts it promised. Instead, the FTC charges, NorVergence immediately sold the black box rental contracts to finance companies for quick cash. NorVergence was able to provide a few early customers with "discounted" services only because it used the proceeds of contracts from new customers. The scheme collapsed when NorVergence was unable to provide services or pay its suppliers. In filing its complaint in federal district court, the FTC also alleged that NorVergence rental contracts, which it sold to finance companies, contained clauses that purportedly required customers to pay even if NorVergence failed to provide any services and allowed the finance companies to seek collections in any forum they chose, making it very difficult for customers to dispute the monthly rental fees. At this point default judgments for “no showing up” have been rendered in Illinois, Texas, and Massachusetts making contracts generated by NorVergence as being “fraudulent in nature,” therefore null and void. If such a ruling should be handed down in the U.S.District court, it would apply to all NorVergence “Equipment Rental Contracts” in the United States. This ruling would be a civil ruling and perhaps supersede or influence the outcome of any class action suits. It would leave the various states attorney generals in the position to file criminal charges against those leasing companies who have not settled, and also opens to the door to the US Postal Authority who has jurisdiction over criminal interstate situations such as this one. The US Postal Authority has brought many leasing brokers and company officers to serve jail time. Leasing company attorneys have contended the issue has become “political,” and the fact is many of these attorney generals are either up for re-election or running for higher office. They are looking to prove to voters they go after the bad guys. The question then: how many of the leasing companies are the bad guys?
|
|
