Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint Report:

 Bridge Capital Leasing----A New Twist and Turn

A complaint was posted from Mitch Farber at NetBilling on Thursday, March 11.

It appears on March 8, he and Sarah Farber made an agreement with Bridge Capital Leasing to:

“ 1) remove the website “bridgecapitalleeasingsucks.com” and any links

to the site;

2) withdraw any and all complaints that may have been provided verbally or/and in writing to any person, agency or institution.

3) Make no further statements verbally or in writing regard this.

“Netbillin, Inc. agrees to provide a written acknowledgment of the forgoing.  Netbilling, Inc. further indemnified and holds harmless Bridge Capital Leasing, Inc. from any actions that may arise from the agreement both now and in the future.

“Upon receive of the signed agreement, Bridge Capital Leaisng, Inc. will issue a check in the amount of $3,161.00 within 48 hours and shall be overnighted to Netbilling, Inc.'s corporate offices.

“In the event Netbilling, Inc. breaches any form of the agreement, Bridge Capital Leasing, Inc. may then proceed against Netbilling, Inc. to recover said funds as damages.”

This along with a copy of the check was faxed to Leasing News late Friday afternoon

by Paul Behechti, President of Bridge, with this note:

“Because Netbilling, Inc has breached this agreement, a stop payment has been issues (sic) on the check overnighted Netbilling.

“A fax is being sent to Netbilling, Inc. to advise them of the current situation and their breach of the agreement.”

Leasing News was not notified by Bridge Capital, after several daily emails and telephone calls.   However, we did hear from  Mr. Farber:

“They sent us a contract for a refund which I signed and told Paul that we
would take the necessary steps once the check was received. I left the
country for 5 days and came back to your email and a letter from him saying
we breached.

“ I left a message for him today and will tell him once we get a
check and it is cashed, we will take down the site, and ask you to tell your
readers the issue has been resolved. That is fair, correct? Why would I take
the steps based on another promise by them? Is it not fair for me to wait
until the check is deemed as good?”

Thanks, Mitch
====================================
NETBILLING, Inc. dba NETBILLING SERVICES - USA
mitch@netbilling.com
Toll Free within the U.S.A. (888)357-8166
Outside the U.S.A.  (661)252-2456
http://www.netbilling.com
====================================

Now what really tops the entire story:

Netbilling Provides A Complete Transaction Processing Solution And So Much More...
Credit Card & Check Processing
Membership Site Management Systems
E-commerce Shopping Solutions
24/7365 Call Service Center for you & your customers

                               http://www.netbilling.com

  Netbilling is in the business of transferring money between buyer and seller.

------Another Strange But True in this Soap Opera called Leasing:

January 13,2004 We ran this “interesting” dilemma:

Have a very interesting one involving $300,000, from the lessee, a well-respected broker, and attorney regarding a $300,000 California sale/leaseback.  They claim the lease was never consummated, meaning no money was giving to the lessee; in fact, no money was given when the contract was signed ( a condition of the process, the applicant/broker claim).  The late Terminal Leasing* in New York evidently sold the signed lease contract to a major bank, who received payments for two years ( most likely from Terminal) and is suing the lessee for lack of performance, meaning defaulting on the lease.  The major bank claims a “hell and high water” clause that the lease was signed, consideration (money for the contract) was not necessary, venue in New York City, and the lessee is responsible for making the payments. They are suing in Manhattan Federal court. The lessee/applicant disputes the brokers role in the transaction and claims if they lose, the company with 33 employees will be out of business. Leasing News advised that after a search Terminal Leasing was not licensed in the State of California.  We have asked the lessee/applicant for permission to contact the major bank's attorney to get their side of the story so we can print it.

*Terminal Marketing, NY,NY (5/2001) Announcement all assets for sale by creditors on May 31, 2001 at 2:00 p.m (3/2001) Brokers report deals not being funded, commissions not paid, appears out of money.

Today, Tom Johansen finds himself in a similar situation, and is seeking reader's help

in advice:

“About 3 Years ago I had a client that I placed a transaction for with Crocker Capital.  The deal was for approximately $33,000.00.  Crocker Capital did business with Terminal Marketing and placed the deal there.  You probably know where I am going with this now.  Anyway, the deal never was funded by Crocker or Terminal.  Crocker had issued PO's to the 2 vendors in order to get the equipment delivered but the vendors were never paid.  Crocker told me at the time that Terminal was having problems and they had numerous deal over at Terminal that were waiting for funding.  This went on for a couple of months.

“ The Vendors and Client were fed up at this point and wanted to cancel the deals and pick up the equipment.  I talked to Crocker and they sent the client and vendors a letter stating that they were canceling the PO's and the Lease and the Client was free to seek financing elsewhere.

“ I ended up placing the deal with another source and everything went smoothly with the new source and the deal was funded and closed and everyone was happy and I even did an additional deal for the client later that year.

“ Now is when the fun starts happening.  Crocker had assigned the deal to Terminal and Terminal assigned to Wells Fargo.  I got a call from my clients attorney stating that because of a "Hell or High-water" Clause in the Lease Agreement Wells Fargo has every right now to collect on this Lease.  How is this possible when neither Crocker or Terminal funded the vendor? 

“The attorney that called me told me that Crocker had no legal right to Terminate the Lease when it had already assigned the Lease to Terminal and that the assignment from Crocker to Terminal states that Crocker received the Funds from Terminal.  I knew the guys at Crocker very well and I do not think this is the case.  For a lease to be valid don't both Lessor and Lessee have to perform on the Lease?  Since the vendors were never paid how is that Lease Valid?

“My Clients Attorney told me that Wells has offered a settlement of $15,000 which he thinks I should pay along with Crocker on the basis of Fraud. They are basically threatening me with a lawsuit stating that a settlement will never be this cheap again.  He thinks I should bare some of the responsibility for what had happened. 

“How can I be held responsible for this?  I did get a letter from Crocker canceling the Lease for the Client and Got Crocker's permission to seek financing elsewhere.  Crocker is out of Business and Terminal is out of Business.  I want to help the client in every way I can but am not going to be strong-armed into anything.

“ Any advice?”

TJOHANSEN@aol.com

(Leasing News advised him to see if he could counter the settlement of $15,000; and if it did not take, then to ask to pay the money at $1,000 a month, plus get a “hold harmless” agreement from all parties.  The difficulty in this situation is very similar to what happened at Textron with Metrolease, CMC and RW Professional with various vendors ( some were sold three times.)

In many cases, the equipment was delivered, which may be viewed in this instance, even with another leasing company, but the main point that the lender's have is that payments were made.  In some cases, by the lessee and the seller of the paper, like a Ponzi plan, they had the full money up-front and were making payments, thinking they could stay ahead of the game.  In these instances, the leases were executed as money was advanced, and as important, money was received.  The holder of the “note” doesn't know who did what, why, and with the “reps and warrants” and involvement with all parties, $15,000 settlement is a good business decision, particularly if they

will give you terms.  Pay the $2.00.   What do other reader's suggest? editor )