Complaint Review: Norvergence Inc. And Commerce Commercial Leasing

I have read the complaint by the FTC. While I can find many things done probably illegally by Norvergence, I need to note that (a) the complaint is only against Norvergence and (b) the relief appears to be that claimants could be reimbursed by Norvergence.

The biggest challenge will be proving that the contracts were "unified" (services and rental tied together) and that they were fraudulent.

Paying too much for a rental is not fraudulent. Not understanding the terms and conditions of a contract does not constitute fraud.

IF the FTC can prove that the initial rental agreements were fraudulent, then the downstream agreements could probably be overturned.

As for the "hell or high water" clause, it is one of the cornerstones of any lease or mortgage agreement. If that clause were to be invalidated, how could a bank reasonably be assured that you would pay your mortgage?

Your bank gave you a mortgage for $X and they expect $X to be repaid with interest. You can not go back to them and say "I can't live in the house because of _________ (fill in the blank... fire, mold, noisy neighborhood...) so I am not paying the mortgage. You (or your insurance company) needs to pay off the mortgage.

The lease/loan business is all about the timing of the flow of money. A lessor looks at a lease as (a) how much do I have to spend today and (b) how rapidly do they get a payment stream back? So, in this case the lessor purchased from Norvergence not a $1,500 box, but rather a series of payments totaling $24,000 (or more) that you were going to make.

As I mentioned before, no reasonable lessor or bank would make loans or leases collateralizing $24,000 of payments with a $1,500 box. My guess is that they were blindsided as much as you were. That doesn't make your fight any easier.

Again, I wish you the best in this fight!

Yes, several states are looking at this however at least two others have looked at this and have refused to take action against the lessors (they are, however, still pursuing Norvergence.)

Again, I believe your fight is with Norvergence and I sincerely hope that you prevail against them.

Best of luck!

Good infomation guys, thanks for the updates. Well Chet it looks like the Attorney General of New Jersey, Illinios, Texas, and Florida all feel that the lease was a scam. The Federal Trade Commission has filed fraud charges against Norvergence that, if successful will put an injunction against the leasing companies from attempting to collect on the fraudulent leases. Maybe it is just me, but some rather powerful and deep pockets are seeing the flat out crime commited here. Feel free to continue to support the industry.
While we are looking into this issue maybe we should also evaluate the "hell or high water" clause that is used in current property leases. This clause is what the leasing companies are attmepting to use to make us pay for the equipment "sold" to us in this fiasco. The leasing industry must be made to see that there is a time when a lease becomes voidable and not always enforceable. My "matrix" box cannot provide me a low cost alternative for phone and internet if Norvergence is not providing the service. Yes, there are alternates, but the pricing and their condidtions due not uphold the agreeement that I originally signed. The benefit for the bargin is lost. Part of this issue could be resolved in the future if the leasing industry itself would ratify their contracts to include today's issues. That means that if a lease is sold based the property and the service that was sold, when one part i.e. service fails to be provided, the lease too goes to. Of course, the banks would not be able to sell this to investors so they would never be able to profit on buying this type of lease deals. If this had already been addressed no bank in their right mind would have purchased these leases from Novergence. We can be assured the change will never happen until the consumers get in the banks pockets. This may be just the deal.
By the way, USbancorp refused these leases in their broker division just because of this. Later the direct lending arm purchased the same contracts at reduced pricing in bulk or so I hear. It all comes out in the wash.

I started this initial dialogue regarding Norvergence and the leasing companies on this page, and can understand your frustration, as well as thousands of others. I'm not sure at what stage of research that you are into this matter but there are already Class Actions as well as Group Actions that are already in place. In fact, there are several State Attorney Generals as well as Senator Hillary Clinton that have acknowledged the problems reference this Fiasco. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission is actively involved.

My suggestion to you is to contact the California State Attorney General's office to let them know that your company is also involved in this mess. I have been in direct contact with several California Governmental offices and they are interested in the numbers of businesses that have been affected by this in the State of California.

We won our first stage of the legal battle against Preferred Capital last week in which Preferred Capital attempted to make us travel from Texas to Pennsylvania to fight the lawsuit. The judge determined that because of the Texas Attorney General's case against Norvergence for fraud (which would void the contracts with the leasing companies), the fact there are so many complaintants in Texas, and Norvergence was a "local" company with sales reps who resided locally in the area, the case should be handled here in Texas. I believe there are currently 3 or 4 attorney generals who have brought cases against Norvergence for this fraudulent scheme of which the lending inststitutions had to have looked the other way on. More than likely all pending legal action will be put on hold until the AG's cases are settled and those decisions will set the precedent for all off the other pending actions.

I was also ripped off by Norvergence. The clauses in the contract were ambiguous, and there was misrepresentation and fraud. Sorry Chet, but the FLorida Attorney General, and the Federal Trade Commission, both of whom know alot about contract law, have just filed complaints.

I am being sued by Preferred Capital in Cleveland Ohio, and I am based in Los Angeles. Anyone being sued by Preferred Capital in Ohio, please contact me! Let's join together, get a lawyer and file a class action against those bastards! Together, we can put them out of business!

[DELETED]
[Place your comments below and be sure to include your FULL contact information so Rip-off Report can contact you.]

To David (and others)

"If I sold contracts and attempted to uphold them, like the one I signed in my industry, I could be fined and loose my license...."

What terms and conditions in these contracts would cause you to lose your license? please explain.

"How is it that a bank can purchase a bulk amount of loans and not check even 5% of the leases to verify the existance of equipment in working order."

First, I an guessing that YOU certified that the equipment was in working condition. Read the lease agreement again. And, the issue is NOT that the equipment was in working condition when Norvengence folded, but was in working condition when the lease was signed. There is a difference between a piece of equipment being in working condition and a piece of equipment actually being used. And, again, if you allowed Novergence employees to attest that the equipment was working (although I bet they did NOT sign your lease contract), then you are a fool.

"How is it that a bank can purchase a bulk amount of loans and not check even 5% of the leases to verify the existance of equipment in working order."

You are delusional. With so many regulations on banks these days, no bank would be foolish enough to do that! Again, look at your lease agreement. YOU, the person who would be responsible for paying the lease, the person on whose property the equipment resided, said that the equipment was in working condition. What further verification would a bank need???

"Over 11,000 businesses and well over $300 million have been scamed, all due to lack of regulatory controls allowing greed by the leasing companies to take advantage of the us business owners."

Again, you blame the lessors, however YOU had an opportunity to read the lease, YOU signed the lease, YOU saw the opportunity to save a lot of money... how is it that the lessor, using lease documents that have withstood this kind of finger pointing by lessees for years, is now to blame?

"They bougth these leases cheap, knowing the outcome of Norvergence but knew they could still attempt to put us on the hook."

What company, bank, lessor, or even your company, would want this aggravation? None that I can think of. If lessors and banks knew this was coming, they would have run in the other direction.

I am sincerely sorry that all of you are in the position that you are in. I really am. However the lessors are the lowest in line to be blamed. Novergence and business owners who didn't practice even a modest level of due diligence are more to blame.

Just chiming in on the issue. My business is another victim of the Norvergence ordeal. We have currently been sued by USbancorp based in MN and our business is in CA. We choose to fight. A note to CHET. You are a supporter of an industry that is mostly unregulated and with very little over site. Yes, we should have all read our contracts. If I sold contracts and attempted to uphold them, like the one I signed in my industry, I could be fined and loose my license. How is it that a bank can purchase a bulk amount of loans and not check even 5% of the leases to verify the existance of equipment in working order. In addition, is it wrong that in some cases these certifcations they claim were done, were done by Norvergence employees themselves(the company that benefited from the sale of the lease) prior to the lender funding. To support your industry in this particular case is pathetic. Over 11,000 businesses and well over $300 million have been scamed, all due to lack of regulatory controls allowing greed by the leasing companies to take advantage of the us business owners. They bougth these leases cheap, knowing the outcome of Norvergence but knew they could still attempt to put us on the hook.

Our company is located in Dallas. As I read these other Rip Off Reports, they are our story exactly. With so many, how can this continue? It is what it is, a scam, a rip off, a dis-service to small business owners.

These people need to go to jail and they need to paying us. We too have hired an attorney, more money out of pocket for this scam.

They are wanting to settle by having us pay them 10's of thousands of dollars. We should not have to pay them a single penny. They are deceptive, they are theives. They may as well of come into our company and put a gun to our heads. It is the equivolent of what they have done.

A class action suit is the very least that should happen. As usual, attorneys are looking for the big bucks , again at our expense. Where does it end? When does the justice ever come?

Bryan - The issue is more the substance of the agreement that you signed rather than the term "rental" or "lease".

I realize that the term "rental" may suggest a short-term arrangement that can be cancelled with little or no notice, but the terms and conditions of the agreement called a "lease", "rental", "agreement", "use contract" or any other term) is what will apply in this situation.

The lessor is under no obligation to find you a service provider. They may try in order to be helpful, but I could almost guarantee that there is nothing in the contract that says they have to do that or that the service (or lack thereof) has anything to do with your paying their charges.

I am a Norvergence And Commerce Commercial Leasing Ex-Customer and i did not sign a lease but a rental.And i to am being sued from the leasing company and i do not intend to play them for this reason.

Number one i told them to provide me with a service provider that was going to give me the same deal as Norvergence or at least close to it and they sent me all these Golddiggers wanting $500.00 per month instead of the $225.00 from Norvergence.And we all know why we bit the hook in the first place and that was to save money and have good service.

I could really KICK myself in the *** for getting myself into this but we live and learn.As i see it and reading all these reports that everyone needs grab their agreements and look at them real close to see if it is a rental or a lease.

I HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION?
HOW DO I PUT THIS BEHIND ME!

Kyle - I am not an employee of any firms involved with the Novergence problem, but I have been in the equipment leasing business for 20+ years.

My comments come from years of negotiating leases as both a lessor and lessee, as well as negotiating other business contracts.

A lot of this sounds to me like a "something for nothing" deal where it sounded too good to be true, but people still took the bait.

There is no excuse when someone fails to read or interpret a contract that they are signing. A little common sense goes a long way. Maybe I can say that because I know all the gotcha's in leases because of my background, but I just think a lot of you were just not paying attention to details or were blinded by the hype.

I honestly believe that you have a case against Novergence but think you have an uphill battle against the lessors.

The leasing companies sure were eager to settle for as little as 50 cents on the dollar before the class action suit was filed. Seems to me they wanted to get as many people to bite as they could to limit their exposure which they have plenty of.

Chet, it's clear you believe the leasing companies have limited exposure in this issue. May I ask if you are an employee of one of the companies, a former Norvergence customer, or someone just offering an opinion?

"I've read on other forums from a past Norvergence employee's post that apparently some of these notes were sold off to the financial institutions with a nearly 25% margin"

I can almost guarantee you that the notes did not make 25%. There is a cost of money involved when a bank pays for the note today and collects over a period of time.

The fact is Norvergence sales reps told us this box tied directly into the "backbone of the internet" and because the box allowed this connection, we would receive lower rates for our services. Their references given of course checked out. The box was cleverly disguised with "Norvergence" stickers over the "Adtran" logos on the box. The acceptance agreement confirms we received the box - not that it performs the way it is supposed to. There is no way the box installed will ever perform the way Norvergence said it would because it can't. Even if I upgrade the software from Adtran to get the box to work with other networks, it is configured totally wrong for my existing phone switch.

The boxes installed are the same boxes for everyone - an Adtran router worth $2,500 (at most) retail in todays dollars new. Banks financed up to $80,000 for this piece of equipment and the leases varied significantly for the same piece of equipment even among the same lending institutions.

Chet stated that banks wouldn't make that kind of decision and it was a sure way to go out of business. Norvergence put the same slick sales maneuver over on the banks which is one reason banks have been calling customers and attempting to settle for as little as 50 cents on the dollar. I've read on other forums from a past Norvergence employee's post that apparently some of these notes were sold off to the financial institutions with a nearly 25% margin. I guess the financial attraction of the deal was enough for the banks to look the other way on their due diligence. We were not the only suckers.

The banks should have researched a little more and asked Norvergence what they were selling.

With the exception of Dennis, I don't see fraud with the banks or leasing companies.

I could almost guarantee that if you read the lease agreement, it will say somewhere that you have received the equipment and it is what you wanted.

If you signed the lease without having the equipment then you were a fool. If you were pressured into signing it, a reasonably prudent businessman would have seen that as a red flag.

In terms of eqipment value, it is not unreasonable for communications equipment purchased only a few years ago to be worth very little now. That is the nature of this high-tech equipment. And it is all the more reason why a lessor is looking for you all to live up to your lease agreement. They can't take the equipment back because there is little they can do with it.

Kyle's discussion of banks paying $80,000 finaning on a Honda Civic does not apply here. That is a sure way to go out of business and banks just won't make that kind of decision. They finance $80,000 of equipment when it is worth $80,000.

Look, I'm not saying Norvergence did nothing wrong, especially in light of them selling services when they knew they were at the end of the line. But I repeat that if you read the lease contracts you would have seen that the financing was totally independent of the services. If there were as many red flags as you all discuss, you should have not signed the service and lease contracts.

Just common sense, some due diligence and comparison shopping would have kept most of you out of this problem.

I agree with Kyle.

In our case, there was also fraud in the inducement. The salesman misrepresented the company's affiliation with Nortel Networks. I had never heard of Norvergence, and was skeptical, but he indicated they were "part of Norvergence," and that it was a new program targeting small businesses.

Then, all of the paperwork came with Nortel's logo at the top, and Norvergence's logo under it, again leading me to believe that Norvergence was a subsidiary of Nortel. As we now know, this was not the case. I understand Nortel sued Norvergence for misreprentation.

Our contract should be void ab initio, which would make the transfer to the leasing company also void.

We were told by Wells Fargo that we took the lease before the Norvergence service could be installed. Also we never recived all the componants for the system so I feel that the leasing company bears some of the responsabilty in this matter

I couldn't agree more with Chet. We should have seen through Norvergence's scam however their slick salesmen obscured the truth of their "Matrix" system at every turn. It was a bad business decision and we should have never signed the contract.

But here's the deal Chet, if a car salesman sells me a car and claims it will get 80 MPG for $80,000 and it doesn't - that's fraud. Now if a bank issues 500 loans for this EXACT same car and the value of their loans ranges from $10,000 to $80,000 and they know the car is really just a Honda Civic and doesn't get 80 MPG - then that's complicity at the least and possibly collusion.

The fact of the matter is Norvergence sold us a system and guaranteed it would provide low service costs because it would tie us in to "the backbone of the internet" as it stated on their web site. This box is nothing more than a router. If the banks did their homework, they to would have known this and NEVER touched loaning this money. What do they have for collateral on an $80,000 loan? In our case, two boxes which new are worth $4,600 retail. And we have a system that doesn't perform and never will because we were defrauded on what we were leasing. The lease contracts are not valid.

Refusing to pay is valid.

When you fail to pay the banks, and explain why, the banks end up taking a loss.

After a while, the banks come to see that it was foolish to pay Norvergence in the first place.

Pretty soon, banks start investigating companies before they get involved. In effect, they look hard to see if fraud is involved.

When they see a possible fraud, they run like hell. They remember all the losses from the Norvergence deal.

It works the same way with a bad car dealer. The banks say, no thanks, we don't want any part of your car loans. Your dealership sells junk, the customers refuse to pay, and we get stuck trying to collect.

Perhaps if no one was willing to finance these Norvergence deals, then they would not have been able to collect the money and fold up shop.

Banks check carefully when making mortgage loans. They should use equal care when advancing the money for this type of deal.

Besides, the money went into a bank. The banks are the best ones to get it back. They can trace the flow. They can find the accounts. They can freeze the assets.

Trust me, with these kinds of numbers, the money is still residing in a bank somewhere. Nobody took it out as cash. I'd leave it up to the banks to trace the fund's movement and get it back.

I can not believe how many of you are compaining about lease contracts that you signed. You are all in business, don't you read the contracts and apply some common sense to your business practices?

If you bought a car and the dealer arranged financing through your local bank and the car broke down, you would not stop paying the bank. You have a legal obligation to continue paying regardless of the usability of the car.

All of you who leased equipment as part of the Novergence deal should have realized that the financing was separate from the services. You all made bad business decisions, both in choosing Novergence and signing a non-cancellable contract.

We have filed a lawsuit against Prefered Capital and US Bancorp in Texas. There is also a class action suit beginning in New Jersey.

CCL ignored it and filed suit against us in Pennsylvania. We are in Washington, DC. We supposedly owe $15,000. They said they would accept $10,000.

Our lawyer sent another letter saying that the case should be dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction. This too they ignored, then said they would accept $7500 (1/2 or what we owe).

I reluctantly said I would agree to this, if I could pay monthly under the original terms. The cost to file the motion to dismiss would be about $3,000, so I figured I might as well settle even though I hat the thought of giving these crooks one single penny more. THe money we have already paid them more than paid for the cost of the phony matrix box. I am so angry. But, they count on the fact that small companies like ours will fold because we can't afford to fight them in the courts over such a small amount of money.

Then, they said they wanted the payments in 4 equal installments in one year, even though my lease was 5 years. I can't afford to make payments of $1800. THe cash flow just doesn't work that way. I really want to file the motion to dismiss in PA and force them to re-file in DC. But, it's a cost-benefit thing.

There doesn't seem to be any good way out of this. I'm having my attorney tell thme tomorrow the most I can pay is $500 per month (almost double what I'm supposed to pay under the lease). ANd, if they want to be unreasonable, I'll find a way to pay the $3,000 to have an attorney file the motion to dismiss.

I am so angry. This thing was supposed to SAVE us money. Now, I have to pay all my regular phone bills again AND pay for a worthless piece of crap that never did what it was supposed to do. I think they are getting away with murder. It is truly shameful when small businesses are hit with such crap.

I have a usless matrix box in my office with a five year lease contract transtfered to Commece Commercial Leasing Co. I never received the service promised to me by Norvergeance from the beginning. Promising T1 conection?lower phone bills. They filed BK and left me off with a $ 18,000 liability. I am being sued by Commercial Leasing Co. which I think knew about this from th beginning.
Rick
Diamond Bar,Ca

I have a usless matrix box in my office with a five year lease contract transtfered to Commece Commercial Leasing Co. I never received the service promised to me by Norvergeance from the beginning. Promising T1 conection?lower phone bills. They filed BK and left me off with a $ 18,000 liability. I am being sued by Commercial Leasing Co. which I think knew about this from th beginning.
Rick
Diamond Bar,Ca

I have a usless matrix box in my office with a five year lease contract transtfered to Commece Commercial Leasing Co. I never received the service promised to me by Norvergeance from the beginning. Promising T1 conection?lower phone bills. They filed BK and left me off with a $ 18,000 liability. I am being sued by Commercial Leasing Co. which I think knew about this from th beginning.
Rick
Diamond Bar,Ca

I have a usless matrix box in my office with a five year lease contract transtfered to Commece Commercial Leasing Co. I never received the service promised to me by Norvergeance from the beginning. Promising T1 conection?lower phone bills. They filed BK and left me off with a $ 18,000 liability. I am being sued by Commercial Leasing Co. which I think knew about this from th beginning.
Rick
Diamond Bar,Ca

We are another small company ripped off by this scam. Norvergence reps walked into our office with their 3 piece suits and told us of this wonderful product they have that would save us money and improve our communication system. I should have known from the beginning this was too good to be true. They told us they would give us 6 cellular phones with unlimited minutes which would be carrier neutral, pay the early termination fee for all the existing carriers, would provide internet service, unlimited long distance, toll free service and this amazing Matrix phone system that has all these great features. All this for one low monthly price!!

This sounded great to us because we are a service oriented company and spend alot of time using our cell phones.

The hook was set.

We signed the papers and the process started.... so we thought!!

We received 5 cellular phones with service provided by XXXXXX cellular company which had terrible service and did not work in our area where we have great coverage from other cellular companies. We complained and then they sent us new phones from another provider that had Texas area codes.

The Matrix box was mounted in our office and this is when the problems went from bad to worse. I spent hours on hold with custom service and could not get any answers. I have thousands of dollars in bills fom cellular companies and now from a leasing company. Another promise that was made to us was that they would pay our lease if the phone system was not hooked up within 60 days. We never had a phone system hooked up as promised. They have breached any agreement that we have had with them.

Now our current situation is that the leasing company that our lease was transferred to has filed a lawsuit against us claiming that we owe them close to $39,000 because we breached the contract. I signed an agreement with Norvergence for a communication package and now what do I have? There seems to be multiple copies of this agreement now. I have been sent one from XXXXXXX financing company with there name on it and I also have the original agreement that was signed and copied in my office that only has norvergence on it. What is going on here. I am told that this is going to cost me thousands of dollars maybee 10k + to fight this.

I have only received 2 bills from the financing company which we have not paid and now they are sueing us. This seems kind of weird that they have filed so quickly being that there has only been 2 missed payments. I have other leases that I may have been late paying once or twice but I have never been served papers from the court ina state I have never done business in.

Is anyone else in this same situation?

Scammed in NJ

So, there is another company in Grapevine TX who was ripped off! Sure would be easier finding a group of people having the same problem and using one attorney!

How can we do this for all the folks in Texas effected by this scam?

So, there is another company in Grapevine TX who was ripped off! Sure would be easier finding a group of people having the same problem and using one attorney!

How can we do this for all the folks in Texas effected by this scam?

So, there is another company in Grapevine TX who was ripped off! Sure would be easier finding a group of people having the same problem and using one attorney!

How can we do this for all the folks in Texas effected by this scam?

So, there is another company in Grapevine TX who was ripped off! Sure would be easier finding a group of people having the same problem and using one attorney!

How can we do this for all the folks in Texas effected by this scam?

We too are a victim of the Norvergence scam and are presently speaking with an attorney regarding the "rental" agreements. If anyone has any information regarding a contact for the group of potential class action suit members please let me know. We are very interested in joining and keeping this fight in Texas. I can be reached via rebuttal.

[Place your comments below and be sure to include your FULL contact information so Rip-off Report can contact you.]

We are also a small business in Washington, DC, with a useless matrix box from Norvergence and a 60 month lease with Commerce Commercial Leasing.

We have hired an attorney and have stopped paying the lease. Our attorney is drafting letters to Norvergence and Commerce Commercial Leasing. Commerce Commercial Leasing called us the other day to see if our equipment was working, and I referred them directly to our attorney.

Anyone dealing with Commerce Commercial Leasing please continue to post any developments here. If we all pressure them, we may have some success. If we have to litigate, we will. It seems that enforcement of the leases would be unconscionable under the circumstances.

Dennis Bourgault, President

I think an organized approach to the State Attorney General of Texas concerning this Rip Off would be effective.

I would like ot organize all who have been harmed and hire one attorney to do a class action suite.

Does anyone already have an attorney who might get this done? Has anyone contacted the Texas State Attorney GeNeral?

This is in response to the Norvergence/Commerce Commercial Leasing problems. Our company is also a victum of these unscruplous individuals. I have contacted D&B regarding what we can do to protect ourselves if the leasing company should send in a bad report on us. Their answer was that neither Norvergence nor Commerce Commercial Leasing is a D&B member so therefore they can not hurt your credit rating.

We have hired an attorney and one of the first things you need to do is file a complaint with the Attorney Generals office in your state. If enough people in your state do this it might help to ensure that any litigation is done in your state rather then you having to hire a lawyer in the state the rip off leasing company is in.

In Texas we do not take kindly to this kind of rip off and we have very good consumer protection laws. We are starting to hear from other Norvergence victums through the phone company we went back to.

They know we are trying to start a class action suit in Texas. So far we have six people and many more to come. If you talk to your new phone reps, they can spread the word for you also, that way you can get in touch with each other.

We have to stick together on this mess are we all are going to have to pay these leaches and we would rather pay attorney fees then see Commerce Commercial Leasing get another penny from us. Our attorney is also investigating whether or not there is any connection between Norvergence or Commerce Commercial Leasing.

Even if your leasing company is not the same, do all you can to ensure that they never are allowed to do this to anyone else and make sure that it happens in your state if at all possible. Class action is the best way for this to happen.

Another victum

We also had Commerce Commercial Leasing. We are not paying. We have been told by a former norvergence customer that lease was voidable because it was sold before any services were provided (and our were never provided). We have hired a lawyer.

How can any of these leasing companies not know this was a scam when the same piece of equipment was being leased to numerous companies for a range of prices from a few thousands to 60,000-80,000 dollars. Plus one of the financial officers of Norvergence is the president of a national equipment leasing association. Smells pretty fishy.

The agreement with norvergence was matrix system which included long distance charges. Commerce Commerical Leasing tells us we could get another provider. No other providers will use existing equipment. Plus you know the leasing company is not going to pay for the long distance charges.

We have the same problem but Wells Fargo Finanical is the leasing company. I have contacted the Atty. General of Connecticut and asked that he look into the method used to obtain the lease. I was not going to agree till I had service but Wells Fargo told me I could not obtain service till I agreed to the lease. Now Wells Fargo tells me that they have nothing to do with the service and to pay the lease. I think they had a lot to do with it.We'll see what the Connecticut A.G. Has to say.

I too have been contacted many times by "Commerce Comercial Bank" for payment on a box that serves no purpose to me. I have explained to them that I won't make payment on something that is not and has never been used. Their response has been that they have no relationship to Norvergence and that I am solely liable for the lease payments. And they will find me a new provider. I don't need a new provider, I need this lease payment voided. Someone explain to me, why and how can this be? Norvergence set this whole thing up, never really explaing the lease portion of it. Shouldn't they be liable to Commerce Commercial Bank. Plus they have never provided me with phone service, they never returned my calls. Luckily I still have my old provider, as I won't loose phone service. Good luck to all involved with this horrible scam.