[isaacdstern]

http://debanked.com/2017/09/isos-all...osive-lawsuit/

[Michael I]

it is about damn time bravo isaac

[WestCoastFunding]

I probably get 3-4 emails from these types of companies per week. Wish someone would setup a fake email address and do a round of email blasts offering debt settlement services. Any ISO that that responds seeking these services should be outed.

[Michael I]

I probably get 3-4 emails from these types of companies per week. Wish someone would setup a fake email address and do a round of email blasts offering debt settlement services. Any ISO that that responds seeking these services should be outed.

i have been getting calls on my cell phone . I cant figure out where they would have gotten it from

[WestCoastFunding]

i have been getting calls on my cell phone . I cant figure out where they would have gotten it from

Some of these guys worked with funders and took their lists with them. one guy sent me an email talking about how he used to be some sort of VP in California for WBL. Whether it's true or not I have no idea.

[RickyR3712]

I wonder if all lenders/funders will now cut off those iso or will mcaguru still offer them double digit commissions?
Making them lose their entire renewal book can hurt even more than the outcome of the lawsuit.

[gerayin]

How do you know these guys were sending merchants to settlement companies?

[WestCoastFunding]

I wonder if all lenders/funders will now cut off those iso or will mcaguru still offer them double digit commissions?
Making them lose their entire renewal book can hurt even more than the outcome of the lawsuit.

Good point. I'm sure the point of this is to scare ISOs. Stop the ISOs from participating in this **** and most of the problem goes away.

With that having been said, I've seen another hustle by ISOs lately: stacking a bunch of advances while promising merchants they'll consolidate them. Once they're stacked, they disappear on the merchant. Had a merchant reach out to me last month who did 4 advances in 2 days with a broker promising to consolidate them. I told the merchant he can't put that all on the broker -- he's to blame himself. But it's an all around ****ty practice.

[WestCoastFunding]

How do you know these guys were sending merchants to settlement companies?

I bet they reached out to the merchants, and the merchants are now witnesses.

[Zach]

Some of these guys worked with funders and took their lists with them. one guy sent me an email talking about how he used to be some sort of VP in California for WBL. Whether it's true or not I have no idea.

Just to be clear, this was/is not me.

[WestCoastFunding]

Just to be clear, this was/is not me.

Oh hell no. Absolutely was not you. Never funded anything with you, Zach, but I've sent some deals to you for review. Appreciated how straightforward and competent you were. Responsive, too.

Was not Zach.

[WestCoastFunding]

His name in the email was Joe I*****n.

[Jess]

http://debanked.com/2017/09/isos-all...osive-lawsuit/

Why does the filing use the words "exclusive" rights to debit account? Also curious about language regarding the security interest in the cash in a merchants bank account. Is the case implying that the merchant's other vendors don't have a right to debit account? I'm failing to see the logic in Proskauer argument here and the Conversion claim. A security agreement does give not a funder the right to control who can and cannot debit a merchant's cash account. What am I missing here? If there is no event of default, no cash in the account belongs to the funder as they purchased future receivables. Why not limit the scope of the filing to the violation of the ISO agreement?

[Karen37a]

Why does the filing use the words "exclusive" rights to debit account? Also curious about language regarding the security interest in the cash in a merchants bank account. Is the case implying that the merchant's other vendors don't have a right to debit account? I'm failing to see the logic in .
t here and the Conversion claim. A security agreement does give not a funder the right to control who can and cannot debit a merchant's cash account. What am I missing here? If there is no event of default, no cash in the account belongs to the funder as they purchased future receivables. Why not limit the scope of the filing to the violation of the ISO agreement?

(A few of us were asking on here....why are you allowing these people to market debt restructuring along with cash advances and no one responded. I thought the silencet might be that they have it handled and would team up., but not telegraph their moves. Yeah yellowstone and everest.)

I would assume the conversion argument would be that they convinced or helped people get cash advances.. while simultaneously
tossing out the idea of "hey you do not have to pay it back, because"

deceptive practices ..."you can take money from these people, but I have another company that steps into force a settlement after you dont pay" ( and even if you didnt do this, having 2 companies can cause a conflict of interest in somes eyes)

These things wind up getting thrown back in peoples faces, they tried that with Loans...mods. Then when the Lender/investor didn't play ball the client/merchant rolls on you " he made me do it, I didnt understand"

Also when their credit gets fkd....they will want it fixed, then again they blame the person who had the bright idea.

Some people legitimately need help ...took an advance than had competition open across the street, had a heart attack etc. But most of these companies use high pressure tactics to lure some ethical people who are not in trouble into doing it.

It's the equivalent of a lawyer coaching people into bankruptcy to scam money.People go bankrupt...but it's not supposed to be a preplanned thing, coached by a broker ,lawyer or telemarketing who makes money on both ends ....They say take money then you can default after,

It can cross the line to fraud, deceptive practices, illegal conversion etc...not just losing an Iso agreement, a civil judgement ,cease and desist or injunction

[HDF]

I too applaud calling out and holding these and any other unethical entities accountable. 1st degree manipulation of funders and sometimes taking advantage of whipsawed clients.

But the uncomfortable question needs to be asked: Isn't funders stacking each other excessively 2nd degree so to speak? Contracts do matter last I checked.

[ADiamond]

does this perhaps have anything to do with Funder Takes Extreme Measures to Counter Data Theft ?? cause and effect ? i'm sure it can't be said but it makes you wonder... anyhow, Isaac you are the embodiment of what most of us wake up to aspire to be every day - A BOSS!

Drain the swamp President Stern!!!

[Karen37a]

I too applaud calling out and holding these and any other unethical entities accountable. 1st degree manipulation of funders and sometimes taking advantage of whipsawed clients.

But the uncomfortable question needs to be asked: Isn't funders stacking each other excessively 2nd degree so to speak? Contracts do matter last I checked.

Ring a Bell I agree with Hdf ....BUT some A paper funders gutting people pretending to be the pillar of the community...the great Ethical company....they are worse than the others.

[Jess]

No. Conversion is the intent to take ownership of Chattel inconsistent with real owners rights. In this case it refers the debt consolidators debiting the bank accounts and YS EBF are claiming rights or defacto ownership of the bank accounts due the security agreement and the UCC. The merchant has the right to bank account not the funder unless there is a event of default. So essentially YS and EBF are asserting that they have the right to cash in the merchants bank account even if no default. Would love any attorneys on here to give clarification.

[Karen37a]

No. Conversion is the intent to take ownership of Chattel inconsistent with real owners rights. In this case it refers the debt consolidators debiting the bank accounts and YS EBF are claiming rights or defacto ownership of the bank accounts due the security agreement and the UCC. The merchant has the right to bank account not the funder unless there is a event of default. So essentially YS and EBF are asserting that they have the right to cash in the merchants bank account even if no default. Would love any attorneys on here to give clarification.

If thats the case they are making its not the right course of action. I didnt read it.

I am telling you from first hand experience(I didnt do it,saw competitors), they sell a cash advance ( or loan) with the caveat ( or simultaneous verbal declaration )that they can default and they will help them skip out on the payments with no negative repurcussions.

Many Loan mod companies , lenders were raided for numerous violations


**and I am not a lawyer ...only play one on TV**

[Jess]

It's not and moreover while the filing addresses the true up nature of MCA as well the risk taken by YS and EBF because an MCA is not loan. Asserting dominion over a merchants bank account does not do the "Mca" is not a loan and the funders have an unsecured purchase of future receivables argument any favors.

[Karen37a]

It's not and moreover while the filing addresses the true up nature of MCA as well the risk taken by YS and EBF because an MCA is not loan. Asserting dominion over a merchants bank account does not do the "Mca" is not a loan and the funders have an unsecured purchase of future receivables argument any favors.

Conversion = theft

purposful deception... taking money and having no intention of paying it back from the get go, coached by a broker/iso.debt rest company making commission on both ends...maybe lying on the application who knows

[Jess]

If the debt consoldators debited the merchants account per their agreemrnt with the merchant it is not theft. The merchant may have a valid legal claim against the consolidator for breach or non performance But the point is that YS and EBF are asserting that the cash in merchants account belonged to them due to their security interest and UCC. It's a not a valid argument in my opinion but let's wait for an attorney to chime in.

[Karen37a]

You cant stop a debt restructuring company from doing what they do...but there is a Tortios interference argument and also
supposed to be an ethical "Chinese wall"...its decption, conversionof funds if it was purposeful

___

I am starting to really not care about certain Funders anyway One of them fcked one of my clients in a hurricane area 5 ways to Sunday this week. And I hope they realize that Elizabeth = Karen

Moron collection guy telling me to call him Mr Something when I know more than him

Fking idiot owner of a company says to me ...do you know what "Torture us" interference means...I said ..its tor·tious

[WestCoastFunding]

If the debt consoldators debited the merchants account per their agreemrnt with the merchant it is not theft. The merchant may have a valid legal claim against the consolidator for breach or non performance But the point is that YS and EBF are asserting that the cash in merchants account belonged to them due to their security interest and UCC. It's a not a valid argument in my opinion but let's wait for an attorney to chime in.

Unless they had the merchant close the account that EBF and YSC were debiting from, opened a new account, and the debt consolidators debited, themselves, from the new acct.

[WestCoastFunding]

So essentially YS and EBF are asserting that they have the right to cash in the merchants bank account even if no default. Would love any attorneys on here to give clarification.

Aren't we to assume there was a default, tho? If the merchant Blocked or stopped payments, there was a default. And isn't that what these companies instruct the merchants to do?