Norvergence ripoff the judge might void all the lease agreements Newark New Jersey

If you have time and patience you can read the transcripts from the Bankruptcy hearing the one the judge made her decision to convert from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. In those transcripts it was brought up to her by an attorney about the customers and the leases that are now useless.

Its not on record and she is well aware of the situation because there was also attorneys present that represented the leasing companies and they were adament about her shutting down service because this equipment would no longer be of any value and they wanted time to investigate telecommunication companies that might be able to use this equipment. They also stated that the customers would be upset and would no longer pay for this equipment and there would be a lot of law suits filed.

But, a representative for the NorV customer stated that why should the customer be forced to go with a company just because the box can be used.....they should not be forced into anything since they have suffered enough!
You can read this transcripts on [DELETED]
[Place your information below.]
Grab a cup of coffee, settle down and enjoy the reading and be thankful your not an attorney!

While I in no way agree with the way that NorVergence was run, treated its employee's, or ways that it did business; One has to wonder who is really to blame in this matter. I did not work for NorVergence, Nor was I an employee. I do work in the telecomm. industry and do have a few friends who worked for NorVergence and have been following this situation closely through them and the TAA.

As I understand it, NorVergence employees would leave all paperwork with with the customer to review the LEGALITY and perform their research before a quote was given. The way I have it explained to me is that it was the customer's responsibility to very thoroughly review the documents and to question anything that they might not understand or disagree with. If the customer did not agree to the terms, they were not obligated to sign. I have even heard where some potential customer's wanted to have their lawyer review the paperwork before signing. I think this is a good idea. In the event that would happen, most lawyers would advise against it because of the so called "right of attorney" clause.

You also have to wonder about the leasing companies and how much research did they do about the product(finding out wholesale cost VS how much they were financing it for). Of Course we all know that the price a company sells a product for is more than the cost to them. Look at a donut for instance or sushi for that matter. They cost pennies. The way NorVergence did business, many companies do business this way, it is not very uncommon and as long as the company stays in business you have nothing to worry about. Hence the current problem. I look at it like this, If you ever buy a used car or a new car that is financed through a third party company or bank. The dealer gets his money but the vehicle now belongs to that financial entity. Meanwhile the warranty is still covered by the manufacturer. If you wreck the vehicle and do not have gap insurance, we all know with the depreciation rate of vehicles now days you are pretty much in for whatever insurance wont cover. You still must make the payments. So with all this said I am wondering how much research the financial instituions did into this situation putting that much money on the line without really doing their research.

One thing is for sure. NorVergence has really messed up with its customers and its employees.

I read somewhere that the judge could void the lease aggreements. Not sure of the source, but I would like more info on that if its out there.

Neil of Dallas, Texas,

What is your source for the NorVergence Matrix box lease agreements to be voided?

I signed up for the Matrix box solution after an incredible qualification process with Norvergence in April 04. I did save money until the plug was pulled, but am stuck with a remaining 48 months of lease.

I would love to get CIT Leasing to break their lease (I'd even give them back the box to resell for it's real value).

It is amazing that firm's get away with this type of misleading and faudulent behavior. I suspect Mr. Salzano will be defending himself with my money while he sips tall drinks on the back deck of his yacht.

The rip off: selling equipment and getting the leasing company to agree to sell while misrepresenting their client, Norvergence.