Below you will
find my corespondence with Illinios states Attourneys Office VIA Email.
I can read a
wave file, so that would be great. Thanks.
From: Robert [mailto:b.fabsits@ctptel.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 20043:31 PM To: Blackston, Elizabeth Subject: RE: norvergence
I will record
it to my PC and send it as a wave file and I could also record to mini tape if you prefer.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From:
Blackston, Elizabeth [mailto:EBlackston@atg.state.il.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 20043:25 PM To: b.fabsits@ctptel.com Subject: RE: norvergence
Thank
you. Is there a chance you could record the answering machine message you refer to? I could send you a tape if
you want.
From: Robert [mailto:b.fabsits@ctptel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November
09, 20043:18 PM To:
Blackston, Elizabeth Subject: RE: norvergence
Beth Blackston
Assistant Attorney General:
I am very happy
to hear back from you and pleased that someone is trying to assist these customers, I have attached a list that I had from
installation that I had worked on or was scheduled to do work at. There is a gentleman named Rusty Hale whom is now working
at a company called Prime Communications in Skokie, IL. You may want to speak to he has told me that he has files from Oakbrook office
that may be helpful to you.
If there is anything
I can do to help feel free to call me. I truly have the customer’s best interest at heart. I feel terrible to have been
involved in this mess and I have been trying to point them in the right direction and this seems to be the best. It seems
that there are even Attorneys getting fees from them now to try to keep them out of court and cost. In some cases they would
have to hire an attorney in Minnesota and travel there to defend themselves from the leasing companies.
I also have a message
on my phone that was left from Thomas Salzarno back on June 29, 2004 and I have since
learned that he denies having any ownership in NorVergence it clearly states that he did. I did not delete it in case it would
be helpful.
I have been in
the business of installing telephone systems for over twenty years and I have never seen anything of this magnitude of irresponsibility
I guess I was raised with a little more responsibility and work ethics than the Salzarno brothers.
Sincerely,
Robert Fabsits
Tele# 815.838.0858
Cell# 630.364.9605
-----Original Message----- From:
Blackston, Elizabeth [mailto:EBlackston@atg.state.il.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 200412:50 PM To: b.fabsits@ctptel.com Subject: norvergence
Mr. Fabsits:
Thank you for contacting
the Consumer Fraud Bureau of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. I am one of the attorneys assigned to work
on this matter. We have sued Norvergence and Peter Salzano (copy of complaint attached FYI), and are investigating the
leasing companies.
I would love to have
any information you would be willing to provide. You can email it to me by replying to this message, fax it to 217.782.1097,
or mail a hard copy to me at the address below. I would be interested in talking to you some time also. May I
call you at the number you provided? Thank you.
We may have lost some battles But The War Is Not Over
Disconnected This is a story about hard working business owners who are now being told to pay thousands
of dollars --for basically nothing! Court documents call it a widespread fraud that affected 11,000 Americans, including hundreds
of people in Chicago. ABC7's Cheryl Burton told us how local small business owners are fighting back with the help of the
Illinois attorney general's office
I have heard
you are gathering information on the NorVergence 500 Million dollar scam. I was the PBX Manger for their Oakbrook office and
being that I have been in this business for some twenty years I was smart enough to keep a thorough data base and files of
customers cost installed products ect.. I had no knowledge of the scam in fact I thought it was a great solution for small
business to get the services they need to compete in today’s markets. Bringing most of them from 1980
technology up to the year 2005 where they needed to be.
There
is more to this them most people realize not only did NorVergence threaten the lively hood of these small businesses they
threatened all their employees (customers) I do feel bad for the call center employees of NorVergence some 2000 that lost
their jobs and 5 weeks pay not being able to pay bills due to NorVergence bouncing the company payroll. But they have threatened
the jobs of all the employees of over 10,000 small businesses in the US. And I personally have a list of over 200 and I believe
there was about 1000 in Illinois
alone.
If
there is anything I can do to help or assist in this situation I would be more than happy to help. There are so many problems
that these businesses are facing it is almost impossible to go into in a quick email.
They
face the threats of law suits from shady lease company’s that in my opinion had to know what they were getting involved
in to. I have no knowledge of any lease company that if they knew they were giving a lease on equipment only that would not
check the actual value of said equipment. As most of us thought that this lease was a way for NorVergence to finance this
start up company without going public.
I
further believe that the cell phone company’s seen what would happen and just figured they would gain all these customers
as their client after the fall. I feel the same was the expectance of Qwest which was the carrier in this scam. In fact after
trying to find solutions to keep the customers in service I found that Qwest was trying to charge twice the price of most
of the local services available here in Illinois. Further more the majority of these clients were with Nextel and force to move
to Sprint and T Mobile in order to use NorVergence solution.
In
addition I have done many installs of equipment and in every lease that I had done in the past there is normally a
expectance agreement that need to signed by Installer and customer on completion of job. NorVergence tried this but they could
never give the complete solution of the products and service that were in their contracts , Therefore
somehow this completion certificate seemed to just fade away.
I
have done all could to help these customers and have actually been servicing their phone system and horning a warranty that
the MFG esi has not bothered to do. They assumed that all the customers would have to go with the existing dealers that they
had in the area. Which leads me to believe that they also knew what they were doing.
In
closing not only are the Salzarno brothers to blame someone should look into the rest of these company’s.
Banks Vendors …… What do you try to tell some guy that has to pay 800.00 a month for 5 years that has a phone
system worth 1600.00 totals? And in some cases as you have found an Adtran box that no other CLEC will deal with
Thank you for visiting the home page for the class action litigation on behalf of former Norvergence customers
against third party finance companies that were assigned equipment rental agreements by Norvergence (Media coverage: ABC News, ABC News Follow-Up (9/21/04), Forbes Article on MSNBC, StarLedger, Miami Herald (9/26/04). This site is maintained by counsel to the class, the Law Offices of Michael Scott Green and Kantrowitz, Goldhamer
& Graifman. This page is designed to inform former Norvergence customers and other interested parties about the litigation,
and to provide former Norvergence customers with a means to assist counsel in prosecuting the cases on their behalf by telling
us about their experiences with Norvergence and the third party leasing companies in our brief questionnaire below. By filling
out the questionnaire, you further assist us in the litigation, and ensure that you will be notified of material developments.
The Law Offices of Michael Scott Green and the law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman filed
a class action on behalf of former Norvergence customers against third party finance companies that were assigned equipment
rental agreements by Norvergence. The case, Exquisite Caterers v. Popular Leasing USA, Inc., et al was filed on August 16, 2004 , in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey , County
of Monmouth . The action requests injunctive relief, barring enforcement of the rental agreements, a declaratory judgment
declaring the agreements unenforceable and setting them aside, and statutory and monetary damages under the applicable law.
The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty,
and Notice Act, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Act, breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, and breach of express
warranty.
In a case such as this one, where the damages suffered by individual class members may be relatively small,
class actions may be superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of claims by many individuals for whose
benefit the action is brought. The expense and burden of individual litigation may make it impossible for certain members
of the Class to individually seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged. (Please see N.J. Court Rule 4:32)
Please note that the class action is being represented on a contingency fee basis, there is no retainer
fee. If we are successful in the class action litigation, we will make an application to the Court for attorneys’
fees and expenses, which are typically paid out of a settlement fund or judgment collection which is paid by the defendants.
Such a fee is first passed upon by the Court which must approve all fees and expenses paid to counsel in a class action. If
a settlement is reached, Class Members are afforded the opportunity, at that time, to consider their options and opt-out,
if they so desire, to pursue an individual claim. In addition, if you fit the definition of the class in the amended complaint,
you are, by definition, a putative class member. You do not need to “sign up” or “join” in any
manner at this time to be included as a member of the putative class. For more information regarding class actions you
may review the Class Action FAQ sections at www.lawmsg.com and www.kgglaw.com. There is, unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation regarding class actions circulating and
we urge you to review these sections.
The following lease companies are named in the amended complaint that was filed on Wednesday, September
1, 2004, a class representative for each company was also named: ABB Leasing, BB&T, CCL (Commerce Commercial Leasing),
Celtic Bank, CIT Technology Financing, Court Square Leasing, Crown Bank Leasing, Dolphin Capital Corp., First Lease, General
Electric Capital Corporation, IFC Credit Corp., ILC (Information Leasing Corp.), Interchange Capital, Irwin Business Finance,
Lakeland Bank, Liberty Bank, Norv Capital (De Lage Landen), OFC Capital (ALFA Financial), Patriot Commercial Leasing, Popular
Leasing, Preferred Capital, Inc., Sterling National Bank, Studabaker-Worthington, TCF Express Leasing, US Bancorp., Wells
Fargo Financial Leasing.
On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, an Order to Show Cause For Temporary Restraints to stop the leasing companies
from enforcing the leases or prosecuting filed individual actions was filed on behalf of the class action. All 26 leasing
companies named above have been served with both the amended complaint and the Order to Show Cause.
On September 2, 2004, the Honorable Robert A. Coogan, New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, ordered
a hearing date for the Order to Show Cause regarding plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction for Friday, October 1,
2004 at 2:30PM. On September 16, 2004, Defendant IFC Credit Corp. removed the case to federal court, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton Division). Plaintiffs then re-filed their Order to Show Cause on September
23, 2004 in federal court, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).
A new hearing date has been scheduled. An Order to Show Cause hearing regarding plaintiffs request
for a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for Monday, November 1, 2004 at the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Trenton Division).
In the interim, we are well aware that many of you have been sued and have appearance dates prior to that
time. Please note, rather than have to appear, some putative class members are requesting extensions of appearance dates
from the court for 30-45 days to allow them time to obtain individual counsel to defend these claims. Please be aware,
we are not giving you individual legal advice and cannot give individual legal advice to putative class members. You
may wish to discuss an extension with your personal attorney. We cannot give individual legal advice, but, in general, we recommend that you keep current with your lease payments so that you will not be open to individual
litigation. If you choose to keep current, you may wish to discuss with your individual attorney whether you should also write
in a letter and on the check that you are: (1) paying in protest with all rights reserved,
(2) revoking acceptance of the equipment, and; (3) it is a disputed charge. Please note that we have served a letter of revocation
on behalf of the class to the lease companies.
As a result of the overwhelming number of requests from putative class members that have already been
sued individually and would like individual representation for the defense of individual claims while the class action litigation
proceeds, below please find a link to an attorney network in key states. These attorneys are accepting cases for the defense
of individual cases already filed by the leasing companies against putative class members, while the class action continues
to litigate. Since we are litigating the class action, we are well positioned to assist those attorneys that will be defending
individual claims by the leasing companies. Individual representation in the defense of an individual claim against you will
require the signing of a retainer agreement and a retainer fee with the attorney you retain in that particular state.
Please click here to open the attorney network file for the current list of attorneys that are defending individual actions. We will update this list as attorneys join the network
and as we hear about suits filed in the different states by the leasing companies. At the present time we are aware of suits
filed in PA, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Washington State. If you are aware of other states involved please let us know. Please
note that the submission form below asks for information regarding whether or not you have been sued. Please understand that
submission of this form does not retain legal services of our firm or any firm in other states.
We will endeavor to keep this page current and report on material developments. Please check with us daily
for possible updates.
Please note that this site is no way affiliated with Norvergence or any third party finance company.
Bad ring to bankrupt phone firm ; Small businesses left with charges; [Chicago Final Edition]
Jon Van, Tribune staff reporter. Chicago
Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Sep 4, 2004. pg. 1
Abstract (Article Summary)
Even some people experienced with fraud became NorVergence customers. Karl Dickhaus, a consumer fraud attorney practicing
in the St. Louis area, signed up for NorVergence.
Full Text (1000 words)
(Copyright 2004 by the Chicago Tribune)
Ralph Frese signed up with a company that promised its electronic box and service would save him hundreds
of dollars each year on phone and Internet service.
Instead, he faces bills for thousands of dollars in return for no phone service at all.
Frese, a blacksmith who sells canoes on Chicago's Northwest Side, is in the same boat as more than 10,000
small-business operators across the nation who put their trust in NorVergence Inc., a Newark, N.J.-based firm forced into
bankruptcy in July.
NorVergence offered unlimited calling over wired and wireless phones as well as Internet connections for
prices below anything available elsewhere.
Frese, who now calls the offer a Ponzi scheme, said he had no reason to suspect anything was amiss.
"Most of us who remember the good old days of Ma Bell think that phone companies are reliable," said Frese.
In the current competitive era, reliability is no longer telecom's hallmark. Dozens of competitive phone
carriers have gone bankrupt, leaving their customers scrambling to find new carriers.
But NorVergence did more.
It left customers with obligations to pay monthly bills for years to come even though the customers get no
service in return. That's because NorVergence based its sales deal on a box of electronics installed on each customer's premises.
The box, called a Mattrix, is an electronic controller device worth at most $2,000. But NorVergence required
customers to lease the boxes, signing agreements to pay fees of hundreds each month spread over five years.
In most cases, NorVergence sold its interest in the leases to financial companies that then collected the
monthly fees.
Frese is on the hook for more than $200 a month for another 3 1/ 2 years--more than $8,000--even though he
no longer receives any phone service at all from NorVergence.
Like most former NorVergence customers, Frese faces the prospect of paying the monthly bills to receive nothing.
He could stop paying and risk being sued and having his credit rating trashed.
Or he could hire a lawyer.
"We've heard from a law firm that wants to launch a class-action case against the finance companies," said
Frese. "But they want $1,000 upfront, which is a lot of money. I'm worried about being taken again."
What Frese decided to do is to stop paying and file a complaint with the Illinois attorney general's office.
"I'm soon going to be 78," said Frese, whose father started a blacksmith operation on the Northwest Side
almost 70 years ago. "I look forward to every birthday I can make, and I've reached the point in my life where I don't give
a damn if my credit is ruined."
Other small-business operators are more cautious.
Demetri Georgiadis said he spent a decade building his business, Creative Sourcing on Belmont Avenue, and
cannot afford to acquire a bad credit rating.
"I'm facing bills of $650 a month for four years," said Georgiadis. "That's $30,000, which is a lot, but
I am not going to destroy 10 years of effort over $30,000. I'm trying to avoid that."
Leonard Gluck, who runs Interflow Industries in Elk Grove Village, said he faces payments of $23,000 during
the next five years.
"They went after smaller businesses," said Gluck, whose operation has eight employees. "We don't know anything
about phones."
Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan's office has received five fraud complaints regarding NorVergence, said
Melissa Merz, a spokeswoman.
"We are reviewing the allegations to see if any action is warranted," said Merz. "We encourage anyone with
similar complaints to call our fraud hotline at 1-800-386-5438."
The NorVergence bankruptcy left victims in 20 states and also left large companies such as Qwest Communications
International Inc., Sprint Corp. and T-Mobile holding unpaid bills totaling more than $30 million.
At one time NorVergence claimed annual revenue of $200 million and employed 1,300 people.
Its chief executive is Peter Salzano, whose brother, Thomas Salzano, ran another phone company, Minimum Rate
Pricing, that went bankrupt in the late 1990s. Thomas Salzano's earlier company paid $1.2 million to the federal government
in 1998 to settle charges that it acquired long-distance customers without their consent, a practice called "slamming."
Through his attorney, Peter Salzano declined to be interviewed for this story.
The NorVergence experience is an outgrowth of rampant competition in telecommunications, said Edward Hurley,
chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission, which oversees utilities operating in the state.
Because NorVergence only resold phone service provided by other carriers, such as Sprint and Qwest, it required
no licensing by the ICC, Hurley noted.
"This is the kind of thing we have to be wary of," said Hurley. "We allow just about anybody to get into
this business. That's what competition is about."
Even some people experienced with fraud became NorVergence customers. Karl Dickhaus, a consumer fraud attorney
practicing in the St. Louis area, signed up for NorVergence.
"Their office here is near my office," said Dickhaus. "I went over there a lot to complain about their terrible
service. I asked them if they really wanted to mess with a consumer law firm. Apparently, the answer was yes."
Dickhaus said he became aware that NorVergence's problems extended beyond poor customer service when NorVergence
employees sought his representation in collecting unpaid wages.
He represented more than 60 clients from the pool of former NorVergence customers stuck owing money to finance
companies holding their leases.
Dickhaus said NorVergence victims can go to court to get their leases voided because of the fraudulent means
under which they were obtained. Going to court costs about $5,000, he estimated.
"To hold down costs, we try to get several clients who can sue the same finance company," Dickhaus said.
"If you have 10 clients on one suit, they can each pay $500, which is more reasonable.
"Of course, they have to understand, in litigation there are no guarantees," he said.
[Illustration]
PHOTO; Caption: PHOTO: Ralph Frese, whose Chicago business sells canoes, faces thousands of dollars in future
phone bills but has no service from a former supplier. Tribune photo by Heather Stone.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without
permission.
Section:
Business
ISSN/ISBN:
10856706
Text Word Count
1000
Last Day To Sign Up For Norvergence Litigation at
Lower Rate
The Norvergence Litigation has collected over 85% of the $1.2 million dollar funding goal with over $100,000 being received daily. The Norvergence Litigation to end the lease payments of those who have joined and get their money back in damages is expected to launch Monday, September
13th.
Today, Friday, September 10th is the last day you can sign up for Weir & Partner's Norvergence Litigation at the lower rate of three times your monthly lease rate. All engagement letters received starting Monday, September 13th
will only be accepted if accompanied with a payment of five times your monthly lease payment.
2. Complete the last two pages of the engagement letter and fax it to 215-665-1016 or 951-346-3585 with your credit
card payment information. If you are paying by check, make a photocopy of the check and fax it in with the last two pages
of the engagement letter then send the check & engagement letter via overnight mail to:
Weir & Partners LLP Attn: Norvergence The Widener Bldg., 1339 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19109
With your fax or overnight package please include your most recent leasing company statement (so Weir knows who to sue)
and the front page of your Norvergence rental agreement that shows whether or not you have a "personal guarantor" that must
sue the leasing company along with your business.
3. Print your fax machine's "sent confirmation" to evidence you've submitted your engagement letter on time. You
may also wish to overnight mail the faxed information to the address above so you will have a second confirmation that you
have submitted it properly?
Early next week you will receive via email your userID & password to access the members area of the Norvergence Litigation website so you can keep up to date on the lawsuit's progress. Weir & Partners expects to have the injunction in place
by the end of September. DO NOT STOP PAYING your leasing payments until Weir informs you in writing that it is safe to do
so.
3 Days Left To Join Norvergence Litigation At Lower Price
Weir & Partners LLP Norvergence Litigation is expected to officially launch their lawsuit against all the leasing companies on behalf of the ex-Norvergence customers
who have joined the Weir Norvergence Litigation group on Monday, September 13th. The attorneys at Weir hope to have an injunction in place by the end of September, which
will enable the members of the Weir litigation group to legally stop paying their monthly lease payment until the lawsuit
is resolved.
If you are an ex-Norvergence customer who is considering joining the
Weir litigation group you must submit your completed Weir engagement letter with payment not later than Friday, September
10th to receive the one-time price of just three times your total monthly lease payments with a minimum of $1,000.
If you join the Weir group after Friday, September 10th, your engagement
letter will only be accepted if accompanied by a one-time payment of five times your total monthly lease payment with a minimum
of $2,000.
Print, sign & submit the engagement letter as directed with appropriate
payment to join the Norvergence Litigation to legally end your lease payment.
If you have any questions about this information please review all the
information at www.NorvergenceClassAction.com and then call Dan Baldwin, Norvergence Customer Legal Co-op administrator at 951-245-6877.
If you would like to question Weir directly about the merits of their
Norvergence Litigation, please read the frequently asked question section at the Norvergence Litigation web site at www.NorvergenceLitigation.com or call Steve Goodman, Sigmund Fleck or George Tadross of Weir & Partners LLP at 215-241-7709.
Second Legal Co-op Endorses Weir & Partners Over All Others To Stop Lease Payments
It's long been assumed that people from Texas have their own ideas about how to choose what's right for them. Jenny Bernard
of Vantage Metals, an ex-Norvergence customer in Houston is no exception to that rule.
Ms. Bernard assembled a Norvergence legal co-op of her own with 40 ex-Norvergence customers from Texas to hire their own
lawyers in Texas to see what could be done to help them all legally get out of their Norvergence rental agreements. Acting
completely separately from the Norvergence Customer Legal Co-op or "NCLC", Ms. Bernard's Texas legal co-op spent over $7,000
on legal opinions from Texas attorneys.
Specifically they wanted to know which of three options presented the best way to go:
3. Sue the leasing companies from Texas with their own lawyers.
After great deliberation & interviewing the Weir attorneys and the New Jersey attorneys the Texas co-op recommended
that all their members join the Weir & Partners Norvergence Litigation.
Turn up the speakers on your computer and click the right arrow button below to listen to an interview of Jenny Bernard
where you will hear how she and her lawyer come to their conclusion. The interview also gives a great comparison of how a
"group legal action" differs from a "class action" and why they choose Weir & Partners' group action over the New Jersey
class action.
This web site, authored by Weir & Partners LLP, provides information about the proposed group legal action against the leasing companies that Norvergence sold their
rental agreements to.
This public home page provides general information to both the public at large and to ex-Norvergence customers who may
be interested in engaging Weir & Partners and join the proposed group legal action against the leasing companies.
This public page also provides a link to the secure, password protected web site for ex-Norvergence customers who have
officially engaged Weir & Partners and have joined the group legal action by submitting a completed engagement letter.
If you are a current client, please enter our secure site for the latest updates by clicking the 'Client Log In' link on the menu.
Weir & Partners LLP • 1339 Chestnut Street, Suite 500 • Philadelphia,
PA 19107 • 215-241-7709 Tel • 215-665-1016 Fax
To listen to an interview between Dan Baldwin, NCLC Co-op Administrator, Jenny Bernard, an ex-Norvergence customer from
Texas and Julia Lovorn, Ms. Bernard's attorney about how they independently decided to go with the Weir action after spending
$7,000 on their own legal research separate from the NCLC, turn up the speakers on your computer and click the right arrow
button on the audio player below. The entire recording is 65 minutes long.
If you don't see an audio player above, click here or cut and past the following link into a new Internet browser window and then click on the right arrow button that appears:
Other group legal actions may be born that could rival the Weir group action but it is yet
to be seen if any other actions can or will achieve the necessary stature in time to do any of the ex-Norvergence customers
any good. Information about a class action recently filed in New Jersey can be viewed at www.NJNorvergenceClassAction.com. The NCLC has invited the New Jersey law firm shepherding this action to be interviewed on a conference call with the
NCLC but New Jersey law firm has yet to set a date with the NCLC for such an interview.
As is clearly seen by how quickly the leasing company demand letters are turning into lawsuits,
its certainly possible that the leasing companies are simply doing what their policies state they must due with default customers
but it is starting to have the measured affect of individually picking off all the ex-Norvergence customers as quickly as
possible so as to possibly eliminate them as potential members of an ex-Norvergence customer group legal action that could
defeat them in court.
The opinion of the NCLC is that this mounting attrition of sued ex-Norvergence customers will
lead to the eventual defeat of all ex-Norvergence customers unless all non-sued ex-Norvergence customers immediately do three
things. First, they need to share this information and all the demand letters they have received with their own attorney.
Second, they must preserve their ability to go on the offensive by not getting sued – they have to get current with
their lease payment BEFORE they get "accelerated" and/or sued. Third, if they wish to have the validity of the leases adjudicated
in court they should join the group legal action they believe has the best chance of succeeding.
View a Class Action information video.
Brought to you by Chris Placitella.
Norvergence Lease Assignees
A class
action lawsuit has been commenced against approximately fifteen telecommunications lease financing companies and 40 other
corporations on behalf of a nationwide class of persons and entities who leased telecommunication and/or network computer
equipment from Norvergence Inc. The defendants were assignees of leases and equipment rental agreements entered into between
individuals/businesses and Norvergence. The suit alleges that the leases violated various state and federal statutes including
the Consumer Fraud Act, the FTC Holder Rule, the Truth-in-Consumer Contracts, Warranty & Notice Act, and that the leases
constitute breaches of contract, and breaches of implied and express warranty.
If you feel you qualify for damages
or remedies that might be awarded in this class action please fill out the form below.
If
your injustice does not match the complaint described above, please use this form to register your complaint. Thank you.
Fields
marked * are required.
Defendant: (who caused the harm?)
*Norvergence
Lease Assignees (breach of contract)
*
Title: (describe the nature of your complaint in one short sentence)
*
Details
of complaint: (briefly describe the damages
you have suffered)
*
Have
you ever contacted a lawyer about this?
Yes No
*
Are
you currently working with a lawyer on this?
Yes No
Fields
marked * are required.
*
First name:
*
Last
name:
*
Email
address:
*
Confirm
Email address:
*
Day
time phone:
Evening
phone:
Fax:
*
Address:
*
City:
*
State/Prov:
*
Country:
*
Zip/Postal
Code:
How
did you find this website?
DISCLAIMER: By
submitting this form you are agreeing to the following:
1.You
confirm that the information you have provided is true and accurate, and not given for the purpose of harassment.
2.You
acknowledge that you are not engaging Online Legal Services Ltd. to give you legal advice.
3.You
agree that Online Legal Services Ltd. may forward this information to an attorney or law firm, and that they may contact you
at the address and contact numbers that you have supplied.
4.You
agree that Online Legal Services Ltd. is in no way responsible for the advice, actions or inactions of the attorneys or law
firms that may contact you.
5.You
understand that registering a complaint on this website in no way implies an attorney-client relationship or attorney-client
privilege.
6.You understand that use of the information you submit on this site is governed by our Privacy Policy.
7.You
understand that Online Legal Services Ltd. in no way guarantees any satisfaction, justice or compensation for your complaint.
8.You
understand that Online Legal Services Ltd. does not offer any opinion whatsoever concerning the merits of any claim you might
have, and encourages you to also contact other counsel if you intend to pursue any claims, which you should do promptly to
avoid having your case barred by the statute of limitations.
I have read and agree to the Disclaimer and Terms of Service.
It
is a free service to submit your case on this website.
Federal Trade Commission Call For Norvergence Leasing Company
Information
The Norvergence Customer Legal Co-op (www.LegalCoop.com & www.NorvergenceClassAction.com) is working directly with the Federal Trade Commission or "FTC" in their review of the Norvergence matter. The FTC has asked
that the co-op forwared to them the following documents:
PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT MORE THAN HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED
1. Lawsuits where
a Norvergence leasing company has sued an ex-Norvergence customer or an ex-Norvergence customer has sued a Norvergence leasing
company. Please fax a copy of the lawsuit summons and complaint.
2. Theatened lawsuits.
Please fax a copy of any demand letters you have received directly from the leasing company or from a law firm acting for
a leasing company where a lawsuit against an ex-Norvergence customer is threatened.
3. Brief summary of alleged illegal
activity. If you believe the LEASING COMPANY has involved itself in SPECIFIC alleged illegal activity that
falls under the the FTC's jurisdiction, please submit a brief but specific account of the alleged illegal activity that the
FTC should be made aware of.
All submissions should be prefaced with a fax cover page on your company
letterhead. Please clearly provide your name and direct contact information. Anonymous submissions will not be forwarded to
the FTC.
You will receive a phone call or email withing 24-48 hours to confirm
that the co-op has received your submission.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Dan Baldwin Co-op Administrator
Information About Pending Lawsuit Against Norvergence Leasing Companies
If you are an ex-Norvergence customer who is interested in joining a group legal action against the leasing
companies that Norvergence sold their rental agreements to, please click on the following link to read the Norvergence Litigation
Engagement Letter. This prospective group legal action is being initiated by Weir & Partners LLP of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For additional information read the Engagement Letter and the information below. You are also
invited to call Weir & Partners at 215-241-7709.
The letter is reasonably self explanatory as to its scope but following is a summary of what is planned.
1. Weir & Partners will sue all leasing companies that hold the standard Norvergence Equipment Rental
Agreement for Weir clients regardless of the state in which the leasing company has its principal offices. It will review
and determine whether it will bring suit against the leasing companies that hold nonstandard rental agreements (i.e., those
not displaying the Norvergence Logo), which were apparently signed by a relatively small minority of Norvergence customers.
2. Weir & Partners will seek an injunction against all the leasing companies to prevent them from
suing Weir clients for non-payment of the equipment rental agreement.
3. Weir & Partners will attempt to have all ongoing suits against Weir clients suspended until the
outcome of the Weir initiated suit is known.
4. Weir & Partners will seek to have all the rental agreements for the Weir clients cancelled.
5. Any firm settlement offer received by Weir & Partners will be communicated to you, along with their
recommendation, for your acceptance or rejection. You are under no obligation to accept any settlement offered
to you by the holder of your rental agreement.
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. What is the Norvergence Litigation?
Norvergence, Inc., now in bankruptcy, sold drastically reduced rate telecommunication services to small
businesses throughout the United States. In order to obtain these telecommunication services, the customer was required to
enter into a long term (usually 36 or 60 month) Equipment Rental Agreement for a Matrix device which was a necessary component
of the provision of the telecommunication services. Norvergence, as the "renter" on the standard form of Norvergence Equipment
Rental Agreement, sold and assigned the Equipment Rental Agreements to more than a dozen secondary investors, including banks
and leasing companies (the "Holders"). (We are aware that a small minority of Norvergence customers may have signed equipment
rental or lease forms provided by their Holders. We will have to review the terms of such Agreements and the circumstances
under which they were signed to determine if we can bring suit on behalf of this minority group if customers.) Ultimately,
Norvergence was unable to pay the current charges to the providers of the telecommunication services it was passing through
to its customers and was forced into an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding. Norvergence no longer provides telecommunication
services and the Matrix devices are no longer operational. Nonetheless, the Holders are insisting that Norvergence customers
continue making rental payments for the Matrix devices.
2. What is a Matrix device?
Good question. It appears to be some sort of network router, apparently costing somewhere between $400.00
and $1,000.00, and most probably was not essential to Norvergence providing its drastically reduced rate telecommunication
services to its customers.
3. Why did Norvergence customers have to rent Matrix devices?
If, as we believe, the Matrix device was not necessary to obtain reduced rate telecommunication services,
then its only real function was to enable Norvergence to convert a stream of future monthly telecommunication service charges
into immediate cash. For example, if the customer was incurring $1,500.00 per month in telecommunication service charges,
Norvergence would offer to reduce that monthly charge to less than $200.00 on the condition that the customer rent a Matrix
device for 60 months at a monthly rental of approximately $600.00, for a total rental obligation of about $36,000.00 over
the term (60 x $600.00 = $36,000.00). Norvergence would sell and assign the Matrix device rental agreement, often within a
day or two, for approximately two thirds (2/3rds) of the total rental obligation, in this case for about $24,000.00, to a
Holder which is the person to whom the rental payments are now owed by the Norvergence customer.
4. Where is that cash?
Obviously, as Norvergence had to pay for the telecommunication services it was passing through to its
customers, but at perhaps slightly lower wholesale rates than were being paid by its customers but for far more than it was
collecting, it had to apply at least some of the monthly service fees and some of the cash it received on sale of the Matrix
device rental agreements to pay the cost of the telecommunication services it passed through to its customers. But, as the
costs of the services it was purchasing were substantially more than it was going to receive from the customer utilizing those
services over the agreed term, and it was contracting to purchase more and more services as its customer base grew, it had
to rely on new customers to keep its unique marketing plan afloat. In sum, the Matrix device lease may have been nothing more
than the means by which Norvergence was able to conduct what appears to have been a pyramid plan and, like all pyramid plans,
it collapsed under its own weight when it could not attract a sufficient and ever growing number of new customers to generate
sufficient cash to pay the ever increasing charges for telecommunication services.
5. Are the Holders of the Equipment Rental Agreements entitled to continue to receive monthly rentals for the Matrix device?
According to the terms of the standard form of Norvergence Equipment Rental Agreement, "Your [the Norvergence
customers] duty to make the rental payments is unconditional despite equipment failure, damage, loss or any other problem.
If the equipment does not work as represented by the vendor, or if the vendor or any other person fails to provide any service,
or if the equipment is unsatisfactory for any other reason, you will make such claim solely against the vendor or other person
and will make no claim against us." This type of clause is often referred to as a "hell or high water" clause and seemingly
would insulate the Holders from any actions or inactions by Norvergence unless they knowingly participated in such activity
or had reason to know that something was not right with these rental agreements. Unless and until we are successful in enjoining
the Holders from collecting rentals and enforcing the Equipment Rental Agreements, we advise that you continue to make rental
payments.
6. Am I entitled to any remedy, such as voiding of the Equipment Rental Agreements, abatement of rental payments, or the like?
These are hard questions. The Holders will claim that they are just as innocent as the renters of the
Matrix devices. We will try to show that this is not true. In order to prevail, we may have to prove that the Holders knew,
or from the various transactions they entered, should have known that a Matrix device in the hands of one renter should have
had a substantially similar cost as a similar Matrix device in the hands of other renters. But, our preliminary research reveals
Matrix device rental obligations that are widely divergent, from $300.00 or so a month to $25,000.00 or more, all for what
appears to be the same device. To illustrate why we believe the Holders may not be innocent parties, when a car leasing company
buys a lease it also acquires title to the vehicle being leased and, at any time, has a good idea of the liquidation value
of the vehicle in the event of the lessee's default. Its investment is tied not only to the stream of rental payments but
also to the liquidation value of the leased vehicle. On the other hand, the Holders of Equipment Rental Agreements may have
been buying nothing more than a stream of rental payments without any regard whatsoever to the value of the leased Matrix
devices. If this is the case, we will attempt to prove that the core of the transaction being financed was not the renting
of a Matrix device but to provide immediate cash to Norvergence for the provision of future telecommunication services.
7. Can I obtain damages?
In addition to seeking injunctions to bar the Holders from continuing to enforce the Equipment Rental
Agreements, we are also considering seeking damages under the Consumer Fraud Act of New Jersey (the "CFA") and, possibly,
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The CFA, for example, permits consumers, including
businesses, to sue for damages for unfair, fraudulent and/or deceptive acts and practices. Any damages that the court or jury
determines have been suffered are tripled and the victims of the practice are also entitled to recover their attorney's fees.
RICO also provides for damages and attorneys' fees, but RICO claims are more difficult to prove. Any damages awarded by the
court would be paid to our clients although we would retain the attorney's fees.
8. So, why settle? And, why so large a "critical mass" of clients?
Because litigation is not predictable and, ultimately, giving a potential settlement offer, may not be
in your best interests, we are required to advise you of any settlement offer we receive, which you can then approve or reject.
We will advise you whether we believe the offer is fair or if we think you can do better. We have to assume that not all Holders
will be willing to settle on any terms we recommend are reasonable and not all of you would be willing to settle on terms
we deem reasonable. Thus, we anticipate litigating this matter on behalf of some Norvergence customers against some Holders.
We have to budget our anticipated fees and expenses on the not unreasonable expectation that we will have to try the case,
that whether we win or lose there will be appeals, and appeals of appeals, and that there is enough money in prepaid fees
to cover all of our costs. If the money in the fee pool runs out, we will proceed in litigating this matter in accordance
with the highest ethics of the profession, and do so out of our own pockets.
9. How do I know that you will sue the Holder of my Matrix device Equipment Rental Agreement?
We can't guaranty that we will bring suit against any Holder. We can state that if your Matrix device
rental is evidenced by the standard form of Norvergence Equipment Rental Agreement, we intend to bring suit against the Holder
based on that agreement and the manner in which it was originated, negotiated, offered for sale, sold and assigned to the
current Holder. However, if a particular Holder insisted on using its own lease or rental forms and procedures, we will have
to do an independent fact finding, not only with regard to the terms of the lease but in particular with regard to how it
was negotiated and closed. Chances are that even if other forms and procedures were used, we will bring suit against that
Holder but we cannot say so with certainty until such time as we meet our ethical obligations to institute suit in the reasonable
belief that there is a viable cause of action. (For your information, the standard form of Norvergence Equipment Rental Agreement
has the Norvergence logo at the top).
10. What if I do not pay the monthly rentals for the Matrix device and I am sued while the Norvergence Litigation is pending?
Unless and until we are successful in barring the Holders of Equipment Rental Agreements from seeking
to sue on them, you should either continue to make rental payments or retain counsel to assure that a default judgment is
not entered against you. Please note that the Holder will most likely assert your default as a counterclaim to our suit. We
ask that no attempt be made, at least for the present, to consolidate any individual collection action brought against you
by your Holder with the broader Norvergence Litigation we will be instituting, as the individual issues could overwhelm our
request for broader relief, but we will be looking at this issue again soon after we commence the litigation.
11. How can I rely on your good faith to represent me in this matter? After all, I already got stung once?
Ouch! But a reasonable concern. We were brought into this matter at the suggestion of the Norvergence
Legal Co-Op, when the Co-Op found that we were the first law firm to appear on behalf of a Norvergence customer in the bankruptcy
proceeding. We have since provided legal advice to the Co-Op with regard to the Norvergence Equipment Rental Agreement and
the obligation of its members on that agreement. In fact, ultimately, whether you should place any reliance on a law firm
depends on the reputation of the firm.
12. Why do you need approximately 1,000 clients before you will agree to represent us?
We have projected that the costs of investigation, expert testimony, depositions, and discovery, our responding
to such requests, preparing motions, briefs and pleadings, litigating the issues, taking or responding to appeals (whether
we win or lose), and our out-of-pocket costs (telephone, postage, copying, overnight deliveries, etc.) will likely approximate
$1,200,000.00. If we are retained by only 60 clients who pay us $20,000.00 each (three times the monthly rental payment but
not less than $1,000.00), we will undertake this action with only those 60 clients. However, we project that most of our clients
will be paying us the minimum fee of $1,000.00 and that's how we arrived at 1,000 clients. If we do not meet our projected
target of $1,200,000.00 within a period of 14 days or so of our first advising Norvergence customers of our desire to undertake
a class or consolidated action and we are not even close to meeting this goal, we will so advise those who have agreed to
retain us and sent us our required fee and promptly refund the entire fee (if you pay by credit card, we will initiate a credit
in your favor on your credit card account). If we meet the target, we will so advise our clients by email and promptly proceed
to litigation. In the meantime, we are already allocating the resources to do the research necessary to bring the suit, in
anticipation of meeting our target.
13. Why should I join the suit? Won't I benefit if I just sit on the sidelines?
You certainly would if we were to bring a class action, (assuming we meet our targeted fee). But, our
inclination at this time is to bring individual actions on behalf of each client and seek to have them consolidated. In such
a consolidated action, only the parties to the suit can benefit from the judgment or be encompassed within a settlement agreement.
A class action is very cumbersome and, once a class is certified, any settlement negotiations become subject to the court's
approval. Because this is a commercial rather than consumer dispute and we believe our clients are rather more sophisticated,
especially with regard to settlement negotiations, and each may desire more or less from a settlement (which means that only
one holdout would force us to litigate), we believe the much preferred form is the consolidated action. So, sitting on the
sidelines leaves you free to negotiate with the Holder of your Equipment Rental Agreement on your own, while we will be perceived
as ready, willing and able to litigate. The less economic power you are perceived to wield, the less likely you are to obtain
the relief you seek and to which you may lawfully be entitled.
14. Are you taking this matter on only to obtain quick settlements or do you really intend to litigate in order to obtain
injunctive or monetary relief?
We would like to obtain settlements that are attractive to all of our clients but anticipate that we will
not be able to do so. Since we are charging a fixed fee in advance, we will not be able to go back to our clients to pay our
fees as they are incurred. In our experience you cannot obtain a good settlement unless the other side perceives that not
only are you ready, willing and able to go to court, but that you are very eager to get there. For this reason, we approach
each matter on behalf of our clients with the intention and expectation that it will be litigated. But, we are aware that
it is not always in the best interests of our client to litigate the claim. This is because litigation takes time, costs a
lot of money, requires our clients to focus on the lawsuit, not on their business, and the client can lose. Because you will
be paying our fee in advance, you will have less of an economic incentive to settle once you pay our fee, and even less of
an economic incentive if we are able to temporarily enjoin the Holders of the Norvergence Equipment Rental Agreements from
seeking or collecting payment or otherwise enforcing those agreements. Thus, as you have less to risk by litigating than would
normally be the case, we perceive a very strong likelihood that we will be litigating in this matter, on behalf of some (if
not all) of our clients. But, even then, no matter how strong a case and no matter how strong the desire to "put it to the
other party", litigation never presents a certain conclusion. Parties most often settle because there is always the off chance
that they could lose. A settlement fixes the loss at a fixed and sustainable amount. Moreover, rescission or voiding of the
Equipment Rental Agreement is less likely if you received at least some of the reduced rate services for which you contracted.
In that case, equity would call for some sort of mitigation of damages on your part. In the final analysis, we are required
by law to communicate every firm settlement offer we receive. If we believe the offer is attractive, we will tell you so,
and why. If we believe the Holder can do better, we will likewise tell you so, and why. But, it will be up to you to decide
to settle or not. If you do not agree to settle on any terms, we will be required to litigate the matter to final conclusion.
And, because we believe that the likelihood of litigation to conclusion is so strong, we have required that we receive our
targeted fee before we will proceed.
15. I do business in Texas (or California or some other state). Where will you bring the suit? Will it matter to me? Does
the state where my leasing company does business come into play?
The standard form of Norvergence Equipment Rental Agreement provides, in relevant part, "This agreement
shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State in which Lessor's [i.e., Norvergence]
principal offices are located [New Jersey] or, if this Lease is assigned by Lessor, the State in which the assignee's principal
offices are located, without regard to such State's choice of law considerations and all legal actions relating to this Lease
shall be venued exclusively in a state or federal court located within that State." Because the initial state of jurisdiction
that applied pursuant to the terms of the Equipment Rental Agreement at the time it was signed by you was New Jersey, we intend
to bring all of the actions against all of the Holders on behalf of our clients in New Jersey and will seek to have the above
clause declared void in the courts of New Jersey. We cannot represent that we will be successful although there is controlling
legal authority in support of our position. New Jersey is a consumer friendly state and has consumer protection laws that
cover businesses. Those laws have real teeth in them. The Consumer Fraud Act of New Jersey, for example, covers corporations
within the ambit of protected "consumers" and provides for the tripling of damages and the award of attorney's fees to successful
plaintiffs. If the court rules against us on the venue issue, we would immediately appeal. If we lost the appeal, we would
retain local counsel in each state in which the principal offices of the Holders of our clients' rental agreements are located
without additional cost to you. We would bring separate actions in that state, each of which would be consolidated for the
renters from the Holder in that state, but we would continue to control the suits. We could move to be admitted (pro hac vice)
to litigate before the courts of those states.
16. I previously guaranteed payment of the Equipment Rental Agreement. Do I have to pay you an additional fee?
No. We will endeavor to have the Holders of the Equipment Rental Agreements barred from collecting and/or
enforcing those agreements against the renters and any guarantors of payment, and will do so without charging an additional
fee to the guarantor.
17. What does any Norvergence Equipment Rental Agreement and Service Agreement consist of?
Another good question. All of the documents you received from the Norvergence Sales Representative, taken
as a whole, will make up your service contract. We also want to see correspondence to and from you and Norvergence and/or
your Holder, as well as any certification by you to Norvergence or the Holder that the Matrix device was properly delivered
and installed.
18. Even though suit will soon be brought by you, will I be liable for costs, attorneys' fees and damages?
We anticipate that the Holders will answer our complaint and, to the extent any of our clients is delinquent
in payment, file counterclaims under that client's Equipment Rental Agreement demanding immediate payment in full of all future
rentals, plus attorneys' fees, repossession costs, overhead, and the like, all as provided in the section of the Norvergence
Equipment Rental Agreement labeled "Default". But, such claims can be raised only if you are in default. To avoid exposure
to such claims, we again recommend that you keep your rental obligations current until such time as we advise that you may
prudently cease making payments.
19. What if I lose the case?
This can happen. After all, the Equipment Rental Agreement strips you of many of the defenses that would
normally be available to a lessee of equipment and separates your obligations to pay the rental payments from the continued
operability of the Matrix device or the continued provision by Norvergence of telecommunication services. And, we can't guaranty
that we won't lose. We can represent to you that we will diligently pursue this matter on your behalf to the best of our ability.
URGENT: Please Forward To All Ex-Norvergence Customers
Starting as early as next Monday, one or more law firms will be presenting information to ex-Norvergence customers about
potential class action law suits or other group legal actions against the leasing companies that bought the Norvergence rental
agreements.
ALL EX-NORVERGENCE CUSTOMERS PLEASE REGISTER AT THE FOLLOWING WEB SITE:
PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ANY AND ALL EX-NORVERGENCE CUSTOMERS YOU KNOW SO THEY CAN REGISTER FOR FREE TO GET THIS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION.
Ex-Norvergence customers can register to receive the information for free and without obligation.
Sincerely,
Dan Baldwin, Administrator Norvergence Customer Legal Co-op
31500 Grape Street #3-307 Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
206-203-6115 x2
As
you are probably aware, the network has been shutdown due to the bankruptcy (rip off) on NorVergence, Inc. Part. It seems
that Qwest does not care about 11,000 small businesses and their employee’s as NorVergence did.
I
think if we all try to work at this together, we will get through a stressful situation that they have put everyone in.
Bob
Fabsits
Information for NorVergence customers
ESI is a Plano, Texas-based manufacturer of telephone systems that markets its IVX®-branded
products through its network of Authorized Resellers across the United States.
Since November, 2003, ESI has manufactured a private-label version of its IVX telephone system for NorVergence, which resold
it as the MATRIX™ CCS.
NorVergence installed, serviced, and warranted the equipment to you as part of a bundle of local, long-distance, and cellular
phone service coupled with the on-premises MATRIX Gateway and MATRIX CCS.
On July 14, 2004, NorVergence was converted into Chapter 7 liquidation. The Bankruptcy Court granted NorVergence’s
creditors permission to terminate all NorVergence telephone service. ESI was advised on July 16, 2004, that NorVergence telephone
service customers would have a “limited amount of time” to find another provider. Therefore, ESI urges you to
establish telephone service through another carrier immediately. Your MATRIX CCS system can be reprogrammed to run on regular
telephone lines. Yes and ESI will provide technical support free of charge through that ESI Authorized Reseller. (See the
frequently asked questions, below, for more information.)
It is your responsibility, and that of the ESI Authorized Reseller, to work out acceptable charges for service and ongoing
support.
Here are some of the most frequently asked questions (“FAQs”).
My phone system isn’t working; is it the fault of the ESI-manufactured equipment? Probably
not. If you don’t have a dial tone, the problem most likely is due to the line service provider’s actions that
have been approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
How can I get my phone system working? There are two different options, depending on the equipment
you have at your office:
If you have a phone system that is operating and you have only lost the service provided by NorVergence,
we can direct you to an ESI Authorized Reseller in your area that can provide ongoing service for your system. Please call
815.838.0858 and we will assist you . If your system isn’t completely installed and operational, or you only have
a portion of the equipment (telephone instrument only), Please feel free to call CPT Inc. and we will be happy to
asist you.
Can the phone system be hooked up to my local telephone service? Yes. Communication Telephony Professionals can
Connect you to your new service provider.
Do I need the MATRIX Gateway? No; the MATRIX Gateway isn’t necessary for connection to your
local telephone service.
What is my warranty coverage? At the time of shipment of equipment to NorVergence, ESI provided
NorVergence a one-year warranty for parts, a warranty which in turn was extended to you. ESI will convert the balance of this
warranty, as invoiced to NorVergence, for parts only, to the ESI Authorized Reseller servicing your equipment. Any service
or reprogramming by the ESI Authorized Reseller is not covered under this warranty and is your responsibility, not that of
ESI or the ESI Authorized Reseller.
ESI User’s Guides
You will need the free software, Adobe® Reader (formerly
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader),
to view and print the files shown below. If necessary, you can download it from the Adobe Web site.
All information contained herein (including within downloadable files) subject to change without
notice.
Suggested
Sites for Information www.telecomagent.org we do recommend not any links for services offered, although there is good info here.
We are Gathering
Illinois customers and speaking with an attorney about the process to end these fraudulent lease agreements that were assigned
without your knowledge. I certainly do not know of a bank that would allow me to lease a Hyundai Accent at the price of a
Cadillac.
I was certainly
not aware of the lease (rental) terms while I was employed there. As most of you know, my Ethics and Personal Responsibility
would have never allowed me to work for such a Company.
Again, please
accept my apologies for the needless aggravation you have been put through.
Sincerely;
Robert E
Fabsits (Bob the Phone Guy)
I will update asap , But as most of you know most of my time is now being spent keeping you in service to keep your business
running satifactory.
Communication Telephony Professionals,Inc. (630)-364-9605
