GHS Solutions and Global Client Solutions Named in California Lawsuit

A California lawsuit against Global Client Solutions and GHS Solutions has just been moved to Federal Court. The case, Beck v. GHS Solutions and Global Client Solutions makes the following allegations:

GHS Solutions, through its websites at ghssolutions.com and debtsettlementsource.com sold debt settlement services under the California prorating law. The Plaintiff states that after eleven months of payments and placing $12,000 in his trust fund, GHS failed to “complete debt settlement negotiations and pay Plaintiff’s creditors and return monies tendered by Plaintiff.”

The complaint alleges that GHS acted fraudulently and Global Client Solutions aided in that endeavor. The Defendant states they were not advised by GHS that GHS would take no action until all the advanced fees for debt settlement services had been paid, GHS would not communicate with the Plaintiff’s creditors, GHS made his financial situation worse, and by following the advice of GHS, it resulted in judgments, wage garnishments, and potential liens and levies.

It is stated that, “as a direct and legal result of the foregoing fraud, deceit and misrepresentation by Defendant GHS, Plaintiff has suffered harm and severe emotional distress, including mental distress, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation by defendants, and each of them, mental suffering, mental anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, physical pain, and other highly unpleasant mental reactions, now and into the future.”

I have to admit, I think this is the first debt settlement suit I’ve seen that includes mortification. Interesting twist.

It is also stated that the Defendant’s in this case were in volition of the California Financial Code §12200 which required licensing and a surety bond for all licensees.

No person shall engage in the business, for compensation, of selling checks, drafts, money orders, or other commercial paper serving the same purpose, or of receiving money as agent of an obligor for the purpose of paying bills, invoices, or accounts of such obligor, or acting as a prorater, nor shall any person, without direct compensation and not as an authorized agent for a utility company, accept money for the purpose of forwarding it to others in payment of utility bills, without first obtaining a license from the commissioner.

Also, it is claimed the Defendants violated California Financial Code §12315 which states,

A prorater shall not receive any fee unless he has the consent of at least 51 percent of the total amount of indebtedness and of the number of creditors listed in the prorater’s contract with the debtor, or such like number of creditors have accepted a distribution of payment.

The complaint also alleges the Defendants violated California Financial Code §12314 which states:

The total charges received by a prorater, or any other person for the prorater’s services, may not exceed in the aggregate twelve percent (12%) for the first three thousand dollars ($3,000), eleven percent (11%) for the next two thousand dollars ($2,000), and ten percent (10%) for any of the remaining payments distributed by a prorater to the creditors of a debtor, except for payments made on recurrent obligations. Recurring obligations shall be defined for the purpose of this section as follows: current rent payments, current utility payments, current telephone bills, current alimony payments, current monthly insurance premium payments, and payments made on obligations which are secured by a first mortgage or first deed of trust on real property.

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12315, upon compliance with the provisions of Sections 12315.1, and 12320, an origination fee of a sum not to exceed fifty dollars ($50) may be charged;

(b) A fee not to exceed four dollars ($4) per disbursement on recurring obligations, consisting of current rent payments or obligations which are secured by a first mortgage or first trust deed on real property, may be charged.

(c) A fee not to exceed one dollar ($1) on other recurring obligations.

When a debtor has not canceled or defaulted on the performance of his contract with the prorater within 12 months after execution of the prorate contract, the prorater shall refund any origination fee charged to the debtor. At least once each month the prorated shall pay not less than 70 percent of all funds received from the debtor to the creditors of the debtor.

This case was filed by:

See also  Bank of Oklahoma Now Named in Global Client Solution Class Action Case

Buddy Clark, Esq.
14341 Beach Blvd
Westminster, CA 92683


If you click on the image below you can read the original complaint.


You are not alone. I'm here to help. There is no need to suffer in silence. We can get through this. Tomorrow can be better than today. Don't give up.

Do you have a question you'd like to ask me for free? Go ahead and click here.

Damon Day - Pro Debt Coach

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.

Follow Me
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
Steve Rhode
Follow Me

6 thoughts on “GHS Solutions and Global Client Solutions Named in California Lawsuit”

  1. I just stopped my payments to GHS solutions! I had been paying them for almost 2 years and they never settled any of my 11 bills i faxed over to them. I am out 1,000’s of dollars! Please Help!

  2. Same here got over $5,000.00 from me and now I have settlements that are being called back and they have no answer why.  I call them 2 times a week and can get no answer from them.  ready to pull out what money I have in the account but hate to see them winning and getting the $5,000.00 I paid

    • I called them every morning when they first opened until I got an answer.  They do keep track of calls because the representative once said ” I see you call quite frequently”  As scary as it is, they did work for me.  Sort of a snowball, once they start settling.  When creditors call, I always said “I have an arbitrator and give them GHS number.’ and than hang up.  You might consider changing your phone number.  Once I changed my phone number to my cell phone I was able to block the credit card companies and all their calls went to voice mail without ringing my phone.  That worked for me or use caller ID and just don’t answer. If you find yourself being sued by the credit card company, by all means go to court and file an answer.  When I went in front of the judge, he was pretty disgusted with the credit card company and referred them to arbitrators.  I was then able to get GHS recognized as my arbitrator.  In my reply to the court I just wrote : “Yes, I do owe them this money, I have retained a arbitrator but the credit card company will not work with them.”  That pretty well sealed my case for me.  Good luke

  3. didn’t freedom already set a precedence by settling with the department of corporations because the money is not held by the DSC? nonetheless, if all fees were paid first there is certainly some liability by putting a consumer in such a position to fail.. However, I don’t buy the prorater argument. 

    in the end… the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant will take home a nice check… and the defendant might get a small gift card 

  4. GCS did the same thing to me.  They charged me outrageous fees and didn’t pay any of my debts, and now refuse to give me a refund.

  5. GCS did the same thing to me.  They charged me outrageous fees and didn’t pay any of my debts, and now refuse to give me a refund.


Leave a Comment