Report: #1231806

Complaint Review: nextgear capital

  • Submitted: Wed, May 27, 2015
  • Updated: Wed, July 22, 2015
  • Reported By: execuride — east brunswick New Jersey USA
  • nextgear capital


Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

 Nextgear Capital, took illegal possession of my cars without going through any legal process. They held my cars for months making them worth less. Nextgear Capital employee, Don Little, notarized my documents, without me being present and also forged a document. I have been informed by several other customers that they also had documents notarized without being present as well. I have detaled recordings of Mr. Little acknowledging that he notarized my documents from his home and begged me not to tell his superiors.  Nextgear Capital held my property and caused me tens of thousands of dollars in losses.

They also retitled my cars without my consent and took illegal possesion. Their attorney, Shannon Landreth, in my opinion broke several rules and laws. I think personally she is a lying sneaky person. I believe Nextgear Capital frauded me and stole my property. They have done this to other customers and actually drove some of them out of business.  Ifthere is a lawyer out there that wants to start a class action suit, I have many recordings of NextGear's behavior. I belive that NextGear Capital, shannon Landreth and others committed consumer and bank fraud.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/27/2015 06:00 PM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 General Comment

lawsuit filed

AUTHOR: truth be told - (USA)

A lawsuit has been filed against Nextgear Capital for their egregious conduct.

This as promised!

It seems that Nextgear seemed to leave out some documents in their answer to the complaint.

Nextgear is trying to move this litigation to Indiana. You can run but you can't hide. I'm sure this case is staying in NJ. After all, it is where the vehicles were illegally, in my opinion, converted.!!!!!

Respond to this report!

#2 Author of original report

recording #4

AUTHOR: - ()

 here is one recording of manheim taking , what I have been told is illegal conversion of my vehicles.

Respond to this report!

#3 Author of original report

nextgear capital being sued , no shock to me!

AUTHOR: - ()

 wow! look below! nextgear capital being sued for conversion by another person.  see robert? to all readers, robert is the so called consumer that is so concerned about these posts. 

JODI C. MAHDAVI, Plaintiff, v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC, et al., Defendants.



April 3, 2015

JODI C. MAHDAVI, Plaintiff, v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on NextGear's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 65) and Defendant P.A.R. Services, Inc.'s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 68.) For the reasons described herein, NextGear's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Count III of the Complaint and DENIED as to Counts I and II. P.A.R. Services, Inc.'s' Motion is GRANTED.
On May 29, 2014, Jodi Mahdavi ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint against defendants NextGear Capital, Inc. ("NextGear") and P.A.R. Services, Inc. ("PAR") in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. ("Compl.")(Dkt. 1-1.) This Complaint alleged that PAR wrongfully repossessed plaintiff's car on behalf of NextGear. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 22). Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment naming her the rightful owner of the vehicle (Count I), a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from selling the vehicle at auction (Count II), and compensatory and punitive damages for trespass and conversion to plaintiff's personal property. (Id. at ¶¶ 29, 32, 45). The Complaint was removed to this Court by defendants on June 3, 2014. (Dkt. 1.) At the Final Pretrial Conference before Judge Ellis on November 20, 2014, all parties consented to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate and the case was referred to the undersigned. (Dkt. 48.) Motions for Summary Judgment were argued on March 20, 2015 and the undersigned took this matter under advisement. (Dkt. 76.)
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986), Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv., Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958-59 (4th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). The moving party bears the initial burden of "informing the district court of the basis for its motion," and identifying the matter "it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing party has the burden of showing that a genuine dispute exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); see also Ray Commc'ns, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 673 F.3d 294, 299 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating the opposing party must "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.") (citations and internal quotations omitted). Importantly, the non-moving party must show more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. "[T]he non-moving party 'may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1381 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)).
In reviewing the record on summary judgment, the Court "must draw any inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant" and "determine whether the record taken as a whole could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the non-movant." Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1259 (4th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). "[A]t the summary judgment stage the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Where there is conflicting evidence, the court must credit the evidence of both sides and acknowledge that there is a genuine issue of material fact that cannot be resolved by summary judgment. See Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1868-69, 188 L. Ed. 2d 895 (2014) (stating that summary judgment is inappropriate where each side has put forward competent evidence that raises a dispute about a material fact).
A. Counts I and II as to Defendant NextGear
In her Complaint, plaintiff alleges that her vehicle, a 2013 BMW 650i Gran Coupe with vehicle identification number WBA6B4C53DD097953 (hereinafter the "BMW") was intentionally taken from her by PAR on behalf of NextGear. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16.) In their Motion for Summary Judgment, NextGear claims that their perfected security interest in the BMW cannot be defeated by plaintiff as she is not a purchaser in the ordinary course of business. (Dkts. 65-66.) Essentially, NextGear's Motion asks that this Court find that Mrs. Mahdavi did not purchase her vehicle in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, does not have a superior interest to NextGear's in the vehicle.
Virginia has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code which states that:
"Buyer in ordinary course of business" means a person that buys goods in good faith, without knowledge that the sale violates the rights of another person in the goods, and in the ordinary course from a person, other than a pawnbroker, in the business of selling goods of that kind. A person buysgoods in the ordinary course if the sale to the person comports with the usual or customary practices in the kind of business in which the seller is engaged or with the seller's own usual or customary practices.
Va. Code Ann. § 8.1A-201.
Courts have used a variety of factors to determine if someone is a buyer in the ordinary course of business including where the sale of a vehicle took place (Al Maroone Ford, Inc. v. Manheim Auto Auction, Inc., 205 Pa. Super. 154, 208 A.2d 290, 293 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1965)), who holds the title to the vehicle (Genesee Reg'l v. Palumbo, 9 Misc. 3d 823, 799 N.Y.S.2d 883, 887 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005); but see Daniel v. Bank of Hayward, 144 Wis. 2d 931, 425 N.W.2d 416, 421 (Wis. 1988)), whether a down payment has been made and the goods identified to the contract (Daniel, 425 N.W.2d at 417, 422-23), whether the purchaser had any knowledge of defects in the seller's title (Rawl's Auto Auction Sales, Inc. v. d**k Herriman Ford, Inc., 690 F.2d 422, 428 (4th Cir. 1982), Marine Unlimited, Inc. v. Farnham Motor Co., Inc., et al., 49 Va. Cir. 321, 322-23 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1999)) , whether licenses were obtained for the vehicles for personal use (First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of El Dorado v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 231 Kan. 431, 646 P.2d 1057, 1061-62 (Kan. 1982)), Bank of Illinois v. Dye 163 Ill.App.3d 1018, 1022, 517 N.E.2d 38, 115 Ill. Dec. 73 (App. Court 111 1987)), and whether the purchaser had any knowledge that it might not be a buyer in the ordinary course (Fifth Third Bank of W. Ohio v. Chrysler Fin. Co., , 2000 WL 1513923, at *6 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2000).
In this case, NextGear has presented evidence to support its contention that Mrs. Mahdavi is not a buyer in the ordinary course of business. This evidence includes that the test drive of the vehicle did not follow the standard procedure of most test drives (Mahdavi Dep. (Dkt. 66-8) 21:1-14), that the sale did not take place at the dealership (Id. at 21:14-22), that Mrs. Mahdavi did not negotiate the terms of the sale (Id. at 29:4-14), and that NextGear still holds an original title to the BMW (NextGear's Mem. Supp. Mot. Default J. (Dkt. 66) Ex. 4). However, plaintiff has also presented facts which could support a finding that Mrs. Mahdavi is a buyer in the ordinary course of business including a Retail Purchase Agreement for the BMW signed by Mrs. Mahdavi (Opposition to NextGear (Dkt. 74) Ex. 3), evidence of a $23,000 down payment for the vehicle as well as a loan with Pentagon Federal Credit Union for the remaining balance in Mrs. Mahdavi's name (Id. at Exs. 8, 6, 10-12), and a Maryland title for the BMW (Id. at Ex. 7). Additionally, plaintiff has provided no evidence that Mrs. Mahdavi had any actual knowledge of any fraud occurring at BW Auto which would have made her title suspect. The facts presented by NextGear as evidence of Mrs. Mahdavi's status have been sufficiently disputed by plaintiff to survive the summary judgment stage. Therefore, as to Counts I and II of plaintiff's complaint, NextGear's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
B. Counts I and II as to Defendant PAR
While the facts are disputed as to NextGear's claim to the vehicle over the plaintiff's, the same cannot be said as to Defendant PAR'S claim. Indeed, PAR makes no claim of interest in the vehicle. (PAR Mem. Supp. Mot. Default J. (Dkt. 69) 2.) PAR simply repossessed the vehicle on behalf of another party, and no longer has the vehicle in its possession. (Id. at 1-2.) Regardless of whether Mrs. Mahdavi was a buyer in the ordinary course or not, PAR makes no claim to the vehicle. Therefore, a declaratory judgment naming Mrs. Mahdavi the proper owner would have no impact on PAR and an injunction against PAR would be inappropriate. For these reasons, PAR'S Amended Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts I and II is GRANTED.
C. Count III
Plaintiff alleges Trespass and Conversion by both parties when her car was repossessed by PAR on behalf of NextGear.
The undisputed facts related to the repossession are as follows: PAR went to Mrs. Mahdavi's home address at 1:00am on May 21, 2014, they hooked the BMW up to the tow truck thereby gaining dominion and control over the car, the PAR agent knocked on the front door of Mrs. Mahdavi's residence and asked Mrs. Mahdavi for the keys. When Mrs. Mahdavi refused to give the agents her keys and told them to leave, the PAR agents left the property. (Mahdavi Dep. 45:14-46:3, 72:13-73:5.)
A trespass to chattels "occurs when one party intentionally uses or intermeddles with personal property in rightful possession of another without authorization." America Online, Inc. v. IMS, 24 F. Supp. 2d 548, 550 (E.D. Va. 1998). Conversion, also an intentional tort, is "the wrongful assumption or exercise of the right of ownership over goods or chattels belonging to another in denial of or inconsistent with the owner's rights." Economopoulos v. Kolaitis, 259 Va. 806, 528 S.E.2d 714, 719 (Va. 2000).
The UCC of Virginia states that upon default, a secured party may "take possession of the collateral... if it proceeds without breach of the peace." Va. Code. Ann. § 8.9A-609. Essentially, an intentional tort claim will fail in a repossession case absent force, threats, violence, or some other breach of the peace. Wallace v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 743 F. Supp. 1228, 1232-33 (W.D. Va. 1990).
Nothing in the undisputed set of facts constitutes a breach of the peace. The facts show that the PAR agents did not use any force, violence, threats or fraud to obtain control over the vehicle. Mrs. Mahdavi's refusal to hand over her keys does not indicate that the peace was broken. See Wallace, 743 F. Supp. at 1233 ("Once a creditor has gained sufficient dominion over his collateral, objection by the debtor will be of no avail."). NextGear claims a valid interest in the BMW and PAR acted on NextGear's behalf; at the time of the repossession, neither party was aware that Mrs. Mahdavi claimed any interest in the vehicle. (Freeman Dep. (Dkt. 65-3) 43:10-17.) Therefore, there was no intentional taking of Mrs. Mahdavi's property. The repossession of the BMW did not constitute any trespass or conversion.
Mrs. Mahdavi has also alleged that she had personal property in her vehicle when it was repossessed that was not returned to her. (Compl. ¶¶ 43-45.) At the summary judgment stage, mere allegations will not suffice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (" adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.") Defendants NextGear and PAR services have presented evidence that the only items removed from the vehicle were a pair of boxing gloves and some paperwork. (PAR Dep. (Dkt. 69-1) 33:18-19.) Mrs. Mahdavi has not met her burden in showing those facts are disputed. Mrs. Mahdavi has claimed that a Cartier watch and cash were in her vehicle at the time it was repossessed. (Mahdavi Dep. 51:10-54:14.) She stated in her deposition that her watch was appraised for insurance purposes but provided no supporting documentation. (Id. ¶¶ 50: 2-10) She has also not presented any evidence to support her claim that there was $2,375 in the vehicle at the time it was repossessed. Mrs. Mahdavi's words alone do not create a dispute over a material issue of fact. She has not met her burden in disputing the facts presented by NextGear and PAR in their motion. Therefore, the record contains no facts which would lead a reasonable trier of fact to believe a conversion of Mrs. Mahdavi's personal property has occurred.
Because the undisputed facts do not support plaintiff's claims of trespass and conversion, NextGear and PAR'S Motions for Summary Judgment as to Count III of plaintiff's complaint are both GRANTED.
As there are no remaining claims against defendant PAR services, they are hereby dismissed as a defendant in this case. The only remaining counts for trial are Counts I and II against defendant NextGear. An appropriate Order will follow this Opinion.
/s/ Theresa Carroll Buchanan
April 3, 2015
Alexandria, Virginia
This matter comes before the Court on NextGear's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 65) and Defendant P.A.R. Services, Inc.'s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 68.) For the reasons described in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, NextGear's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Count III of the Complaint and DENIED as to Counts I and II. P.A.R. Services, Inc.'s Motion is GRANTED.
ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2015
/s/ Theresa Carroll Buchanan
Alexandria, Virginia

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.


Respond to this report!

#4 Author of original report

Nextgear, Illegal conversion is my opinion.

AUTHOR: - ()

This post is for Robert , the guy whom posts on this site and claims he is a consumer, I think that's also a lie.  Robert suggested I file a lawsuit. I think Robert makes a good point. I may take his advice.  I wonder why a consumer would be so interested in my comlplaint about Nextgear??  Any way.... my opinion is nextgear capital employees and some of their legal staff are sneaky liars. I feel that they are disgusting people. They actually tried to force me to only speak to them with attorneys present, this without me being in any default, back in 2013.  I challenge Robert or anyone to show my statements are false. Specifically the previous statement.  Show me I am wrong and will post more and more of the emails and recordings of Nextgear staff.  Please visit

Respond to this report!

#5 Author of original report

fraud is my opinion

AUTHOR: - ()

 I don't need luck, Robert. Who's anonymous? you're anonymous, hidng behind a fake name.  You really don't believe a lawsuit is coming?  I will keep you updated on this site every step of the way.  nextgear, in my opinion, loves to step on the weak and those who can't fight back. I can! And yes, my titles were flipped without any consent or legal course.  Hope nextgear is relying on bogus documents.


This all smells like fraud to me.

Respond to this report!

#6 Author of original report

nextgear unfair practices

AUTHOR: - ()

 who's anonymous?  It's very clear who I am, you're the one hiding behind a fake name.  See viewers, the coward that is hiding his identity is obviously a Nextgear Capital employee.  Well Robert or whatever your name is..... I will take action and we shall see the results. My opinion is that Nextgear bull dozes people that can't fight back. This is not the case here, I will fight and prove my case and post every last detail. 



Respond to this report!

#7 Consumer Comment

No it's not proof

AUTHOR: Robert - (USA)

Would you consider nextgear employee asking me not to tell anyone about his behavior proof?

- No, and I seriously doubt you would get any court or agency to consider that proof either.

So in the end all of your claims are minimized because you refuse to do anything about it other than post anonymous reports on a Public web site.  You refuse to report them to the State, you refuse to go to law enforcement, and you refuse to file a civil suit against them. 

Again the reason seems have no proof as everything you have would be considered "hearsay".  I will say this one more time.   If all of these other dealers and people want to make their own claims they have that right.  But you just repeating what they are saying is nothing.  But having someone tell you not to say anything is NOT proof of anything.

Oh and the few "reviews" you posted didn't mention anything that you are claiming.

Good Luck with what ever your true puprose is.

Respond to this report!

#8 Author of original report

are they all liars?

AUTHOR: - ()

 here are some of the complaints that are on google.  seems some of these people are asking, if not begging for help. this is on the complaint wire.

Nextgear Capital, in my opinion, would like us all to believe these are all lies and fabrications.  In my opinion, some of these customers just were not able to fight back as they may not have the means.


10 Mar 2013
Country: United States
17 Dec 2014
This company systematically sets you up for failure and uses unscrupulous  business tactics to do so.
Reply !
  • 0
    17 Dec 2014
    I would appreciate it if someone who is seeking legal action against Nextgear Capital would please contact me on my cell (((Redacted))) Thank you.
    Reply !
  • 0
    Big Dawg
    24 Dec 2014
    I shut my business down and after selling my inventory owed a balance to NextGear and made an arrangement with them for me to pay the balance. I made a payment yesterday and they sent me a receipt after which I emailed them and asked for a balance on my account, they sent me one and I felt like it wasn't correct so I called and questioned it and was told if I wanted to dispute the amount they were gonna charge me penalties and interest. Classy bunch of folks
    Reply !
  • 0
    AK GUY
    6 Jan 2015
    Please contact me as well---(((Redacted))) Classy bunch of guys/gals   The Mafia of the automotive finance business. Hard to believe that they can operate like this---Your correct. Something has to be done
    Reply !
  • 0
    • 0
      Trace replies to Nextgear Customer
      2 Mar 2015
      Well your right about it being easy , Easy for them to take and keep your money because they ach it . Here's what they have done to me more then once .  I have paid them for a title and received it the next day and it had not been singed off properly, Do you think they should make me fix the problem ?  That's exactly what they have done , They told me  sorry we made a mistake but you will have to fix it . Mind you it's only a 25000.00 dollar car that I sold , just chump change right ! They should give me back my fees . Yes I think they are criminals and have not been using them  at all this year , I think they need to be sued ! D.T.P LOOK IT UP !
      Reply !
      • 0
        11 Apr 2015
        They will bleed you to death beware there charges are worse than loan sharks they charge you for insurance when you have it then they do not want reimburse you total ripoff
Respond to this report!

#9 Author of original report

Response to Robert

AUTHOR: - ()

 Yes , you have a life , it's obvious. There is no slander here , I can prove all of it. I wonder if you're the same Robert that caused some issues between nextgear and myself. Why should I chase a terminated nextgear employee. Maybe he was acting on behalf of nextgear. I Regardless , It is my opinion that nextgear broke rules and laws. Since you seem to be so agitated with my posts , do something about it. I'm to believe all of those dealers that post negative things about nextgear ,on the Internet are all liars ? And proof you ask about , there's plenty of proof. Soon enough that will all be public record. Would you consider nextgear employee asking me not to tell anyone about his behavior proof?

Respond to this report!

#10 Consumer Comment

How about....

AUTHOR: Robert - (USA)

What would I like?  How about just answering all of the questions I asked.

Seriously though, contrary to how important you think you are I actually have a life and quite frankly am not waiting on pins and needles for your response.  But since you did attempt to answer one question...let me give you the answer.

As far as your advice on filing complaints to the state, NJ bar or the police, I suppose I can do that but I feel this is the appropriate way to handle this situation. Why would I notify the state about notary issues when I have been informed by several Nextgear dealers/customers that the employee that notarized the documents was terminated for notarizing documents without customers present.

- Simple.  You can post what ever you want on the Internet and "slander" them with absolulty no proof.  Oh and I don't care if you have 1 million dealer names that means nothing.  Now, if all of your dealers want to post about this company more power to them.  But YOU posting it would just be hearsay. 

But what happens when you go to the police or the State.  They require you to show them your proof.  When you file a police report you actually state under penalty of purgury that you are being truthful.   So yes they have a much higher standard.  So if your intentions are not that honorable, they are not where you would go.

What happens if you tried to sue them?  The courts would require you to show your proof and you would have to do this under oath.

By the way even though they lost their job, they didn't loose their license.  By filing a formal complaint with the state you could keep them from practicing as a Notary or Lawyer from then on.

Respond to this report!

#11 Author of original report

response #2 to "wait a minute

AUTHOR: - ()

 Well Robert? No Response? You asked the full story? There's plenty more to the story.

I have emails and conversations that I can post here for you to give you clarification. As far as your advice on filing complaints to the state, NJ bar or the police, I suppose I can do that but I feel this is the appropriate way to handle this situation. Why would I notify the state about notary issues when I have been informed by several Nextgear dealers/customers that the employee that notarized the documents was terminated for notarizing documents without customers present.

As I stated I can post the dealers names that supplied me with this information right on this site. If you're telling me I should do this, I will further look into it, thank you for the advice.  Nextgear caused me well over $124,000 in losses. I did notice there are many posts on the internet by very unhappy Nextgear customers. It is my opinion that Nextgear Capital has no regard for their customers.

Respond to this report!

#12 Author of original report

Response to "wait a minute "

AUTHOR: - ()

 Hey Robert ..... Would you also like the names of nextgear dealers and emails exchanged stating they had the same experiences with the notary issues? Let me know and I will post them here for your review. Would also like the details and conversations of dealers confirming the termination of said employee for notarizing documents?

Respond to this report!

#13 Consumer Comment

Wait a minute

AUTHOR: Robert - (USA)

You have accused this company of many crimes including Forgery, Grand Theft, and Fraud.  Not to mention having a Notary falsifying documents, and attorney misconduct. 

Yet one thing is missing.  What did the police say when you brought it to their attention?  What did the State say when you told them about the Notary violations?  How about the State BAR?  I mean you did contact them..right? 

So what is the rest of the story?

Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.