Complaint Review: NorVergence - Newark, NJ 07102 New Jersey

I feel sorry for all of the business's that were defrauded by Norvergence. Even one of my customer's was nearly "conned" by a Norvergence "sales consultant". Other than being a minor award recipient in two class actions, I have no experience in deciding if that is a valid path for Norvergence victims. However, since Norvergence is bk, maybe you can connect the dots to the Salzano bros...? Or, maybe it would be more sensible to focus on the leasing companies. It's inconceivable, to me, that the lessors won't let Norvergence "customers" out of their "magic matrix" agreement. It's almost like the leasing companies are co-conspirators. Certainly, the leasing companies have deeper pockets than Norvergence. Consult with your lawyers to determine if it make sense to file a claim against them. BTW, I've been in the Arizona telecom biz for 25 years. During that time I've seen a lot of "slamming and cramming" of phone bills and other misrepresentations. However, I've never observed anything close to this scale of fraud and deception. Norvergence's business model had so many flaws that there's no way it could work... My company has sold 100's of T-1's to small and medium sized business's. Carriers that we represent provide, program, and maintain Adtran, Adit or Cisco equipment - at no expense to the customer. Responsive 24/7 customer service is also provided. The customer pays only for the discounted cost of local lines (trunks), data bandwidth, and long distance service. The monthly charges are normally between $400 and $1200, depending on the level of services. Cellular is not part of this business package. If I can be of any help in your cases, let me know.

The most over-used phrase on this website is class action lawsuit. In 2002, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion regarding the certification of a class action lawsuit. ESI Ergonomic Solutions, LLC, V. United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc., Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, CA-CV 01-0396, 7-16-02. This case arose from a party sending unwanted faxes in violation of federal law. That law allows a person receiving an unwanted fax to recover $500 damages but does not provide for recovery of attorney fees or court costs. The court ruled that in general, to sustain a class action lawsuit, the members of the class must have nearly identical claims, the amount of the individual damages must be low, and there must be no provision in the law for the individual members of the class to recover their attorney fees or court costs. While I am not at all familiar with NorVergence, it does appear that each party may have substantial damages. Since there are written contracts between the parties, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees and court costs in almost all states. The ability to recover attorney fees and the substantial damages are sufficient to bar a class action lawsuit. Class action lawsuits are usually worthless for the consumer, anyway. A typical class action lawsuit results in the attorneys being awarded millions of dollars for their efforts while the individual members of the class receive a coupon for half-off on their next purchase of a Diet Coke.