|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Oct 01, 2008 5:46 pm |
|
re: re: Funding for Start Up or Expansion - CONSIDER CAREFULLY FIRST |
Diane Glatfelter
| |
Sure, I can comment about anything written about my firm.
There was a situation whereby we introduced clients to a collateral provider and lender. We presented the client's project and it was accepted by the collateral provider. We then went to a lender and presented the collateral and the project to a lender. It was accepted. During the processing time, another one of our large clients that we presented to the lender and collateral provider was discovered to have a fraudulent project. The lender rejected the larger project and refused to do any of the smaller loans with the collateral provider's collateral. This affected every single smaller client that we brought to the lender. The clients were left with collateral and no lender. We didn't have any other lender to send the client to that accepted the collateral. We recommended that the clients request their funds back from the collateral provider. Some of the clients received their funds back from the collateral provider and others did not. We never took any funds from the client for the collateral. The client sent their funds to an escrow agent for the collateral provider.
The information posted is by some of those clients that want their funds back from the collateral provider. We can 't obtain the funds back since we didn't send it to the collateral provider and we never accepted it ourselves, thus the client has to take the issue up with the collateral provider directly. We have no legal way to obtain the funds back for the client from the collateral provider.
There is other information posted by brokers who brought us clients. They are upset that they were never paid a commission and are blaming our firm for making the deal fall apart.
If anyone did research, they would see that the collateral provider is suing the fraudulent client and the fraudulent client has countersued not only the collateral provider, but my firm and many other firms that were introducing brokers. The 5th district court has awarded my firm a stay and granted abitration between my firm and the fraudulent client, thus we have been cleared of any fraudulent claims in the eyes of the court.
We have never taken anyone's money without providing a service.
The entire mess would never have happened if we didn't present a client that had a fraudulent project, which we had no way of knowing upfront since we are just "money finders", not a due diligence company.
Diane Glatfelter
CEO
K2 Unlimited Inc.Private Reply to Diane Glatfelter (new win) |
|
| |
|
