Recently the Washington State Supreme Court issued a killer ruling which labels Global Client Solutions as a debt adjuster that aids and abets debt settlement companies to evade the Washington Debt Adjuster statute and is civil and criminally liable.
You can read the full details on that ruling in Washington Supreme Court Issues Important Unanimous Opinion Impacting Debt Settlement Companies that Target Washington Consumers.
The attorney, Darrell Scott, in this video says he is working on cases against 16 debt settlement companies that involve Global Client Solutions.
He says debt settlement companies are debt adjusters and thus should be limited by the state statute that cover debt adjusters.
Debt settlement companies should take the time to review the points of view the attorney argues against Global Client Solutions and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust and then read the final ruling of the court.
The attorney representing defendant Global Client Solutions is Richard Epstien from Greenspoon Marder. He is the same attorney that represented Consumer Law Group in the North Carolina hearing I attended.
Epstein makes the arguments that both Global Client Solutions and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust should not be considered guilty parties and certainly not as aiders and abetters. Ultimately the Supreme Court did not agree.
The argument Epstein makes is Global and Rocky do not receive funds for distribution to the creditors since the money is on deposit on behalf of the consumer. Epstein says consumers that have accounts opened at Rocky Mountain are able to write checks off that account just like any bank account.
Epstein states Global has no authority to withdraw money from the bank accounts and all withdrawals must be directed solely by the consumer. Global is not in the business of distributing funds to creditors and that Global does nothing that Freedom Debt Relief or Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust could have done by themselves.
The argument is that Freedom Debt Relief, Global Client Solutions and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust do not legally receive any funds from the consumer.
It was presented that the contract between the debt settlement company and their client directs consumers to open an account with Global Client Solutions, Noteworld, or they can open their own account at their own bank for the purpose of collecting funds for settling.
Interestingly Epstein makes the argument that the account opened on behalf of the client is like that opened by at attorney for a client trust account in which the attorney has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the client. I think the concept of fiduciary responsibility os going to be spoken about more and more as we move forward and it was one that was raised in this article by a debt settlement attorney.
Paul Lawrence for Noteworld makes its argument on behalf of Global Client Solutions that Noteworld and Global are nothing more than innocent account administrators and have no knowledge of the amount of debt owed by the consumer to its creditors included. It is said the funds are not dedicated for the purpose to be distributed to creditors and the accounts exist only as a convenience of the consumer which they control in full.
Darrell Scott makes a bold rebuttal using a cup of water in hand that labels the argument Global Client Solutions makes that it does not receive funds, as ridiculous. He says that if Global Client Solutions does not control the funds then what gave them the right to whisk all the consumer funds out of Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust to another bank in Oklahoma.
If you have any interest in the business of debt settlement then the video above will be well worth your time to watch.
I can always use your help. If you have a tip or information you want to share, you can get it to me confidentially if you click here.