FTC vs. IFC---another Wallop, Mr. Estok? by Christopher Menkin The newsworthy event reported by Leasing News and others last Friday regarding the Federal Trade Commission investigation of IFC Credit Corporation, Morton, Illinois, basically was the next legal action in obtaining information requested regarding NorVergence leases; judicial enforcement. According to senior FTC attorney Randall H. Brook, the case was filed out of the main office in Washington, DC. He was not informed it was actually filed until this week, Friday being a holiday, and electricity off in parts of Seattle, Washington, where he is located.
Randall H. Brook He did sign it and communicate with his main office on the action, which he considered quite serious as “we have gone public that we have been investigating IFC Credit for over a year.” He says they have accumulated enough evidence, including witnesses, to result in major action against this leasing company. He stated it should give a “warning” to others that they too are being investigated, and while many think “stonewalling” will work, the FTC has filed several serious briefs with authorization to treat all NorVergence lessees as “consumers” who were deceived by various leasing companies. Randall H. Brook said he had read Leasing News latest editorial, and although he was a cat lover, he could make no comment, but did conclude: “I can say I agree with the opinion about the value of the internet to attorneys... speaking up for their behalf, not feeling they are alone, or having to re-invent or discover rulings and facts, ( and ability to pool resources) has certainly changed the playing field.” Leasing News third editorial on the subject: http://www.leasingnews.org/Conscious-Top%20Stories/Cat_is_going.htm Leasing News attempted to reach both IFC President/CEO Rudy Trebels and John Estok, Executive Vice President, who we were told was more directly handling “the matter.” No calls were returned. It should be noted the last time we talked with Mr. Estok he wanted the Leasing News Advisory Board to fire this writer for what he wrote about IFC Credit losing its claim to the Bankruptcy Court to the Federal Trade Commission. http://www.leasingnews.org/Conscious-Top%20Stories/Novergence_121.htm In the IFC Credit situation, they reportedly have leases with “A” and “B” credits with a 25% return (not counting residuals or any extra fees, such as insurance, usurious late charges, or deceptive practices in the collection of payments.) The key revelation, according to Brook, is the FTC declaration is his assignment “...to the FTC's Non-Public Investigation of the Acts and Practices of Unnamed Persons or Entities in Connection with the Offering, sale, or Financing of Telecommunication Services and Products by NorVergence, Inc.” This indicates other leasing companies also are under serous investigation. He was not able to divulge any names until actual filing has taken place. The situation with the recent filing concerns the alleged non-response by IFC Credit and their attorneys to information requested. In the document, it is noted, “In a letter dated October 8, 2004, IFC's attorney Vince Borst indicated that IFCE would produce additional responsive material after completing a privilege review. “6. In November 2004, the Commission initiated an action against NorVergence in federal district court, alleging that the company had defrauded consumers through false and misleading claims that it would provide them with substantial on long-term savings on telecommunication services, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. As detailed in the complaint, NorVergence claimed that part of the savings would be generated by a “Matrix” black box that it would install on customers' premises; but in reality the black boxes were nothing more than standard telephone routes, which NorVergence rented to customers for inflated prices. The complaint also alleged that NorVergence unlawfully provided others with the means an instrumentalities for the commission of deceptive and unfair acts or practices by furnishing third-party finance companies with rental agreements from consumers that allowed the finance companies: (a) to misrepresent that consumers owe money on the rental agreements regardless of whether NorVergence provided the promised telecommunication services, and(b) file collection suits against consumers in distant forums, which made it difficult for customers to dispute the monthly rental fees. This action ultimately ended in default judgment against NorVergence in July, 2005. “. On February 22, 2005, I wrote to Mr. Borst, asking for information on the status of IFC's production of documents in response to the Commission's September 2, 2004 letter. I also identified several additional categories of information that the Commission required from IFC in connection with its investigation. I received no reply to this letter.” On March 22, 2005, the FTC “...issued a Resolution Directing the Use of Compulsory Process in Non-Public Investigation of the Acts and Practices of Unnamed persons or Entitles in Connection with the Offering, Sale, or Financing of Telecommunication Services and Products by NorVergence.” June 28, 2005 Mr. Borst was informed by telephone and letter the FTC had never received the documents in question. August 8, 2005, the FTC issued information directly from IFC President and CEO, Rudolph D. Trebels. September 19, 2005, “...my office sent a letter to Mr. Borst notifying him that if IFC failed to respond to the CID by the end of the week, we would forward the matter to the FTC's Office of the General Counsel with a recommendation that it seek judicial enforcement.” Here are copies of the basis for the judicial enforcement of information from IFC Credit: http://leasingnews.org/PDF/IFC_affidavit.pdf http://leasingnews.org/PDF/IFC_CID_enforcementFiling.pdf
|
 |
| 
