Escondido, CA: Lease broker office looking for Lease Coordinator/Office Manger: process credit, submit to banks,documentation/follow-up; answer phones/manage files.Leasing experience important. please send resume to:stantonleasing@sbcglobal.net or fax to (760) 738-1910

Proven sales producers wanted for 25 yr old co.looking to open new branch offices across the country.
Top comm and backroom support.. john@odysseyequipfinance.com

About the Company: www.odysseyequipfinance.com

Credit and Documentation Administrator Fastest growing lessor in USA (Wayne, NJ location) needs lease administrator to assist with credit investigation, documentation preparation and interfacing with territory Managers. Good benefits and salary commensurate with experience. Contact: Duane E. Rouba @ 800-848-7210 X 222.

About the Company: www.leasingpartnerscapital.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Pictures from the Past----May, 1993—Golf Champions

http://two.leasingnews.org/imanges_uael_wael/champions.jpg

Golf Champions: Western Association of Equipment Leasing Spring Conference Palm Springs, California First Place Team: Ron Mitchell, account executive, ITT Capital Finance, Pleasanton, CA (far left) Kelly Hutchison, National account manager, Lease Pro, Marietta GA (front row, left) and Kevin Libert, VP, ITT Capital Finance ( standing with visor;) Second place went to Kelly Long, regional marketing manager, First Concord Acceptance, Corp., Denver, CO ( back row, third from left) and to Kelly's right, Jim Lahti, president, Affiliated Corporate Services, Inc. Dallas, TX., John Torbenson, president BJ Leasing, Inc., Bellevue, WA (bottom, right).

Closest to the hole: Phil Dushey, EVP, Global Leasing Services, New York, New York (standing, far right).

Longest Drive: Doug Hatch, AVP, Bank of the West Walnut Creek, CA. (center, holding plaque).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closest to the Hole 1993---Phil Dushey 2003

“ I have been in the finance business for about 25 years. I have been a member of most of the leasing organizations EAEL,UAEL,NAELB,ELA. * and have served on many committees in these organizations.

“Currently I am most active in NAELB and serve on various committees. I am also on the advisory board of the Leasing News. I also work as a consultant to many companies in advising them on financial strategies to acquire new companies and expand their businesses.

http://two.leasingnews.org/imanges_uael_wael/Dushey,Phil.jpg

“My company has been in business for over 20 years. When I originally entered the business I only did equipment leasing like so many other brokers at that time . The problem with the equipment leasing business is that it has to many peaks and valleys.

“ About 15 years ago I came very close to going out of business because it was one of those years like we have been experiencing lately. I could not pay my bills and was starting to let people go. I also used to get on a routine basis all kinds of transactions other than leasing and I would turn them all down because I was only in the ‘Equipment Leasing Business’ .

One day I received a transaction from a west coast company that told me that their bank had told them within two weeks the would stop funding on their $2,000,000 line of credit. As I was about to trash the transaction I Said "Why am I doing this " and to make a long story short I did the transaction and made a $50,000 fee. From that time I decided I was not only in the equipment leasing business but a full service financial company . Today Global is very successful and we work with many people in the various leasing organizations in getting their non leasing transaction done.

Over the last year or so we have been deluged with people wanting to enter the finance business but most of them did not have any experience and their was no credible company out there to train them to be a full service finance company. We then decided that we would develop a program to teach people how to enter the lucrative field of finance and be able to make an excellent income in their first year of business.

The people who partake in our program receive a vigorous three day training in our New York offices and we supply them with everything they need to be in business from a custom interactive web site down to their business cards. They will also be on-line with many different direct lenders in all fields of finance so they can truly be a full service finance company.

Probably the important, but intangible thing they get is our on going support for as long as they need it. The price for the program is $14,995 but is going up in September to $19,950. Please visit our website www.globalbrokersystems.com for complete details or call Phil Dushey 212-480-4900

Global Financial Services

17 State Street

New York NY 10004

Email phil@globaleasing.com

Phone 212-480-4900

Philip Dushey

* http://www.leasingnews.org/associations.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faster Leasing News Web Site

The Classified Ads server has been both up-dated and moved to

a different ISP to speed up the process of the pages opening much

faster at www.leasingnews.org

In addition, we have temporarily eliminated the “Kit Menkin Live”

feature from the front page. It was also connected to the old “classified”

server, and in reviewing its usage, it really slows down the opening

of the web site.

We may feature it will a link, as we did with the anti-virus page, or

eliminate it all together. In reality, for the last six month’s it was

only used twice; and not by regular readers, by people who had

a question about CMC Commercial leasing and their lease with

the company.

As a side note, we get many e-mails from lessees

with questions about their lease payments to Firerock Capital,

United Capital, Datronics, and others who’s portfolio is being serviced

not by the original company. The generally are about obtaining

title, or getting a lien released, and sometimes about “over payment,”

or an assignment of the lease.

We are also looking at other means to speed up the opening of

the web site page. It was always our intention to keep the page

simple, black and white, no frills, so it would open “fast.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boeing Lease $30 Million Profit Per Plane?

Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, said ``... this is a bad deal for American taxpayers.''

McCain contends the deal is a sweetheart deal for Chicago-based Boeing, which has been hurt by plunging commercial aircraft sales. McCain is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has scheduled a hearing right

after Labor Day on September 4^th on the Boeing lease transaction.

The House Armed Services Committee and the House and Senate appropriations committees have already approved the leasing plan.

Congressional investigators raised questions about the leasing deal last month, saying the Air Force had underestimated the cost of buying the planes after the proposed six-year lease.

The report by the General Accounting Office said the true cost of the deal is difficult to determine because of its complexity and a variety of assumptions used.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group, said the report showed the folly of the leasing deal.

``No fiscally responsible person would enter a deal that would end up costing far more to lease than to buy,'' said Keith Ashdown, vice president of the group. ``It seems the Air Force is more concerned with Boeing's profits than the taxpayers' pocket book.''

According to the Congressional Budget Office the plan to lease 100 Boeing refueling tanker planes could cost as much as $5.7 billion more than buying them outright, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

The Congressional Budget Office reports the lease for the air force of specially outfitted 767 jets for six years, with an option to buy after that, would cost at least $21.5 billion, compared with $15.9 billion for a direct purchase."

Normally leasing has more advantage. The report states, on the average, the Air Force would spend $161 million per plane to lease and then buy the aircraft, compared to $131 million per plane through an outright purchase, the report said.

In a report to Congress last month, the Air Force calculated that leasing the 100 re-fuelers would cost $17.2 billion, compared with $17.1 billion to buy the planes outright.

If the option to buy is exercised, as expected, the total cost for the deal would rise to more then $21 billion, the Air Force said.

The Air Force has acknowledged that the leasing deal - which is subject to approval by Congress - is more expensive, but it says leasing would speed replacement of aging air tankers and keep money available in the short run to buy other military equipment.

In a statement late Tuesday, the Air Force said that basically Senator McCain did

not have all the facts as the report was incomplete.

``While the report addresses cost issues, it fails to recognize the critical and significant operational and maintenance advantages gained by obtaining a more capable aircraft five years earlier than by purchasing,'' the Air Force said.

Congressional investigators raised questions about the leasing deal last month, saying the Air Force had underestimated the cost of buying the planes after the proposed six-year lease.

The report by the General Accounting Office said the true cost of the deal is difficult to determine because of its complexity and a variety of assumptions used.

The New York Times reports, “Typically, the Pentagon buys equipment outright, putting the annual program costs in the federal budget. Leasing arrangements for military equipment, like the proposed Boeing-Air Force deal, are practically nonexistent. In addition, the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, has taken issue with the deal, arguing that the current fleet of KC-135 aerial tankers can be updated at a cost far lower than acquiring a new fleet, regardless of whether the planes are leased or bought”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, DVI, Where is the $50 Million?

DVI Files Chapter 11, Announces Resignation, Names New CEO

August 5^th, Leasing News questioned DVI ability not to make its

interest payment, and according to insiders, would be filing

bankruptcy.

http://www.leasingnews.org/archives/August_%202003/8-05-03.htm#dvi

The company allegedly tried to sell its portfolio, but was turned down, and

due to the “talk” of “accounting irregularities” and “possible

bankruptcy,” the company in whole, or in part, was not a very

attractive catch, Leasing News was further told.

DVI, Inc. yesterday announced that it and two of its U.S. subsidiaries, DVI Financial Services and DVI Business Credit, have filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code with the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware. DVI elected to file for

reorganization “...as a result of significant financial difficulties stemming

from an unsuccessful diversification strategy, unsuccessful integration of

business units, decreased profitability, concerns regarding near-term

liquidity requirements and the recent discovery of possible accounting

irregularities. “

The Company also announced that a special committee of independent directors has been formed to investigate the possible “accounting irregularities.” Leasing

News is told by an informed source the dollar discrepancy could be

anywhere from $50 to $75 million dollars. There reportedly could

be other discrepancies.

DVI has retained Latham & Watkins as legal counsel and has appointed AlixPartners as crisis managers. AlixPartners is an internationally recognized firm with expertise in crisis management and turning around troubled companies,

and that certainly describes the once very healthy medical industry company.

“Our immediate goal is to stabilize the Company's financial situation and utilize the Chapter 11 process to enable us to operate the business as we work to sell the Company's assets," said Mark Toney, a principal at AlixPartners, who was named “acting” CEO.. "We strongly believe that DVI's considerable asset portfolio will be attractive to the market, and we have already had initial discussions with a number of parties that have expressed interest in the Company."

The Company said it is continuing to work toward obtaining Debtor-in-Possession financing, as well as generate cash from within the Company in order to sustain operations while trying to sell its assets.

_____________________________________________________________

ELA to Promote SBA Despite Covenants

Knowing that small businesses are a key leasing market--a 2002 poll of SBA state contest winners showed that 73% lease equipment—the Equipment Leasing Association has developed a wide range of ongoing communications and outreach initiatives, according to their most recent press release..

Most of the SBA loan agreements have covenants about “leasing” or

obtaining additional loans or financing. It is interesting that a poll of “contest

winners” would show so many leasing equipment, perhaps before the SBA

loan was granted, or with SBA “permission.” Most SBA loan agreements

file a blanket lien on all equipment, assets, and often personal assets, when

the company is privately owned, for both existing and acquired assets,

including finance leases.

The press release states, “ ELA has recently been selected as an SBA Trade Association Partner, and its participation in this newly-developed program will give ELA opportunities for greater access to small businesses. ELA will participate in quarterly luncheon meetings and contribute to the development of policies and programming between SBA small business clients and trade association partners. As an SBA partner, ELA was named an Honorary Co-chair of the SBA National Entrepreneurial Conference & Expo (NECE), and SBA has posted a Web link to ELA’s Web site in recognition of its co-chair designation. NECE will take place September 17-19, 2003 in Washington, D.C. For ELA members interested in attending this annual SBA event, visit www.sba.gov/50 for exhibitor, sponsorship and registration information.

“ELA is sponsoring a full-page advertisement in SBA’s annual magazine, Small Business Success. The magazine has a publication of over 250,000 copies and is distributed to SBA offices in all 50 states; at trade shows and exhibitions, including NECE; and at state Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) and at SBA resource partner, SCORE, offices throughout the year, ensuring a long shelf-life.

“ELA is also working closely with SBA business information and resource managers to provide leasing information and content for SBA’s Web site and for print materials to be distributed throughout the country at SBDCs. ELA is promoting the posting of www.LeaseAssistant.org on SBDC Web sites nationwide and to date has Web links on SBDC sites in ten states and on SCORE’s Web site. Speaking opportunities, seminars and other opportunities between ELA and SBA are also being developed.

“The partnership between ELA and SBA offers the opportunity to serve the equipment financing needs of small businesses throughout the U.S., a critical aspect of their success, while benefiting ELA’s members. ELA and SBA’s mutual goals to assist small businesses form the basis for what promises to be a cooperative, long-term relationship.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint Report---Five

Christopher Menkin, editor

SC Superbroker SC Superbroker, Southern California Town, California

These three or four complaints ( one is really an “alert” ) are listed chronologically as received by Leasing News. Much time was spent in talking to all the parties involved; many telephone calls, e-mail, re-verification, in an attempt to be both “accurate and fair.”

After review with our legal counsel, Ken Greene, we determined not to use

names at this time, and as you read, you may understand our position on this.

Mr. Greene told us he was prepared to defend whatever we printed, as we were

presented facts to the best of our knowledge, but we would rather “err” on

the side of keeping a company in business, especially when we feel we

have “reasonable doubt.”

The first comes from Applicant 1 at *******.

June 18,2003

“After doing some research for help I had come across Leasing News.

“Our request for equipment funding had been placed with SC Superbroker

through another company. We had signed a proposal with SC Superbroker and sent in an advance payment of $2,230.00 to SC Superbroker.

“We had additional requests from SC Superbroker for financial docs. We had sent those to them. Over time SC Superbroker did not finalize any lease so we were able to obtain financing from our bank. After this SC Superbroker called said the lease was finalized, I told them we had it done through our bank. We never received or signed any loan/lease docs.

“We feel we should received a refund for the advance payment.

“SC Superbroker is not returning our phone calls or taking our phone calls and

as of yesterday the receptionist said they could not locate dour file.

“I have been dealing with ********(sic) and Superbroker Ops Person.

“This has been going on for several months...”

He said he was dealing with Broker 1, *********,

who brought him to SC Superbroker. And the last he had heard

from Mr. Broker 1, he was approved at a different rate with

three payments up front.

Leasing News contacted Broker 1, Broker 1 Leasing, State, who

confirmed the story and was told three times by Superbroker Ops Person at

SC Superbroker, that the money would be returned. Superbroker Ops Person

was listed in the SC Superbroker Voice Mail Box listing, and it referred

us to another telephone number. Superbroker Ops Person said he no longer worked

for SC Superbroker and *******( the owner) had promised

he would return the deposit to Applicant 1 when he was associated

with SC Superbroker..

Mr. *******said it was not true, Superbroker Ops Person did not work there, even

though his name was on the voice mail box directory, that he

had done that as a favor to Superbroker Ops Person to list his telephone number.

He said he never told anyone he would send the money back as

he had signed a “proposal” letter, and had approved the lease.

Applicant 1 said he had never received any lease papers form SC Superbroker, and referred me to the original vendor. The vendor said he had had many conversations with SC Superbroker, but they never produced a lease contract,

and were also talking about changing the terms and conditions.

During the course of the conversation, I believe he said that Applicant 1

had gone elsewhere for the equipment.

*******said he would never deal with the broker again, and had raised

his minimum acceptance to $50,000, as he did not want to deal in the

small ticket market due to all the time his company spent on this

transaction for *******. He was adamant that since the applicant

had backed out of an approval as per the proposal was not entitled

to the return of the money.

We asked *******for a comment, and he responded by e-mail:

“There are numerous lies and mistakes in the fore mention article. Kit

remember I have all the paper work for this and you will be held liable.”

*******

While it appeared there were three others who said they were aware of

a lease, according to the proposal, not being approved, this basically

becomes a “he said, “ “they said,” and in the many talks with the broker,

vendor, and other leasing company, it sounded suspicious, or that there

was more to the story that was not being told. The applicant was

furious. In reality, if it were not for the next two complaints against

the same “super broker,” we would not have spent so much time trying

to prove the complaint’s argument. We would like to follow the

American Way, “ a person is innocent until proven guilty.”

July 29, we received the following:

VENDORS & BROKERS BEWARE. A CA. COMPANY CALLED SC SUPERBROKER CORP.TEL;*********** BASED IN**************** IS TAKING UPFRONT PAYMENTS FROM UNSUSPECTING CUSTOMERS FOR LOANS OR LEASE'S THEY WILL NOT FUND.WE KNOW OF TWO CASES. THEY KEPT THE UP FRONT PAYMENTS AND REFUSED TO REFUND OR RETURN PHONE CALLS.

APPLICANT 2***********

APPLICANT 3 **********

I HAVE THEIR PERMISSION TO USE THEIR NAMES.

IF THROUGH YOUR PUBLICATION YOU CAN HELP,IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED

THANK YOU,BROKER 2

Phone = *****

Fax = *******

*****@********

THANK YOU FOR CALLING.I AM A BROKER WITH ******** IN ******. I REFERRED BOTH DEALS TO SC SUPERBROKER ON THE PROMISED UNDERSTANDING THEY WOULD BE GIVEN A FAIR RATE OR THEIR MONEY WOULD BE RETURNED.IN BOTH CASES THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH FAR HIGHER RATES THAN ORIGINALLY QUOTED.THEY ALSO PROMISED MR. APPLICANT 2A REFUND FOR THE PAST MANY MONTHS.

YOU CAN CONFIRM MY STORY WITH THE CUSTOMERS.

******* WITH ***** BROKERAGE IN ****** WHO EVENTUALLY FUNDED MR APPLICANT 2WILL ALSO CONFIRM. HE TRIED TO INTERVENE TO GET MR. APPLICANT 2HIS MONEY WITHOUT SUCCESS.TEL*********

AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN TRYING TO GET SOME FAIRNESS FOR SOME HONEST HARD WORKING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.

BROKER 2

Applicant 2 provided by fax a copy of the “proposal” dated January 15,2003 and later a copy of a check for $2,558. He said he had lost a hauling contract due to all

the time involved, had actually visited SC Superbroker’s office as he was also

located in California, and was promised on several occasions by people in

the SC Superbroker office his money would be returned. He said he keep

calling, but they would not return his telephone calls.

On the Applicant 2 Applicant 2complaint, the proposal had a 60 month lease factor of .0256634 and a penciled note of a 48 month payment with a lease factor of .0396446 ( if the truck cost remained the same.) It was not initialed.

*******said he approved the lease, but Broker 2 took the lease elsewhere,

and referred to a paragraph in his proposal:

“If SC SUPERBROKER does not approve this application, the deposit will be refunded interest, less the cost of the credit verification, documentation, appraisal costs, legal and underwriting fees, and all out of pocket expenses that occur in the process of approving the applicant, etc. The applicant hereby authorizes SC SUPERBROKER to expend these funds in the approval process.”

In a telephone conversation, *******threated to sue Leasing News if we printed

this complaint. We spoke to Mr. Applicant 2 again, then sent an e-mail to ******:

“I will recommend to the other to bring the issue to small claims court,

then when he files it will all be public information as it appears you will not

refund his deposit either.”

“I don't understand what your saying here. Applicant 2’s check is already

on the way to him.”

August 5^th Mr. Applicant 2received a check for $2,000, not his $2,558 deposit.

We assumed SC Superbroker kept $558 as per their paragraph about

credit, documentation, and other costs. Mr. Applicant 2said he did not

agreed to that, had lost a hauling contract, had called many times for eight months,

and was still angry in the length of time and response and wanted Leasing News

to post the complaint.

Leasing News spoke to Broker 2 about the length of time between

the Applicant 2lease and the next complaint, and he said during this time

he had funded other leases with SC Superbroker, that ********

and Superbroker Ops Person had said they would return Applicant 2’s check, and

that Mr. Applicant 2actually visited the SC Superbroker office and

was told he would get his check back ( He said, the entire $2,558,

as that was what the dollar amount on the check.)

We felt the super broker made a gesture by returning a good portion of

the money, and there was nothing in the contract regarding a time limit.

Applicant 2 had the truck, and at a lower cost than the Super Broker had

originally offered, and under the advisement of Ken Greene, we’ll

leave it at that for the time being.

The third complaint is from Applicant 3 of ***** LCC, *******,

On the Gulf of Mexico in the United States. for six barges dated June 21,2003. It concerns a $1,000 deposit. During the course of the many conversations and e-mail, Leasing News suggested to settle the matter for $500, but ***** refused, again referring to the paragraph

in his proposal.

The proposal was for six barges at a total dollar amount of $115,800 with

a ten percent ( $11,580) purchase option at a .0221588 lease factor for sixty months. SC Superbroker presented to Applicant 3 a lease from The Funder in ********, California for three barges at $50,000+ with a 60 month lease factor of $025560

and purchase option “Market Value” (est. market value $40,000 + for 3 barges.”

E-mail from *****:

“He Agreed to the new rates... the terms aren't in question. He called

us to get those rates and have another set of documents prepared. And we

did... the last time I spoke to Broker 2 he said he understood and

agreed with our decision due to the fact that we reopened and did this

deal 4 times for the client and that the client agreed with the new

terms. The new docs were for the FULL AMOUNT REQUESTED. Please get

copy of last set of docs from client. As for the rate increase, the

client stated that he agreed to new terms and only issue was to get the

6 barges done... WE DID IT!!! WE were the only one to issue an approval

to him. NO ONE ELSE wanted to help him. Do you have any idea how many

hours we've invested into this transaction. WE opened and closed it 4

times and doc'd it at least twice. After the last time he asked us to

make doc's, we asked him if he was sure he wanted to go through with the

deal and he stated everything was fine. He NEVER returned the doc's and

that's why the deal never got finished. We've done everything we said

we would do and MORE!!!!”

From Mr. Applicant 3:

“Broker 2 was the broker.

“I did not sign the lease with The Funder because it was not what I

agreed to on the SC Superbroker agreement. The Agreement I agreed to was

for 6 barges with the total cost per barge being $27,590. The Funder

lease was only for three barges with the total price per barge being

$43,653.40. I am not going to pay $43,653. per barge.

“I did not wait all this time to make a complaint. I have been complaining to

Broker 2 since Sept. of 2002. I made numerous attempts to get my deposit

back from Broker 2 and SC Superbroker . They both promised me my money

several times over the last year. SC Superbroker told me my check was in

the mail 3 times. SC Superbroker deliberately tried to sneak a contract by

me that I did not agree to hoping I would not notice. I'm sure you've heard

of bait and switch. That’s all they are doing.”

*******again said he spent a lot of time on this, and to the offer

of a settlement of $500, he said “no way.”

Applicant 3 did confirm:

“They did make other verbal offers to me. I declined them all cause none came

even close to the original. The only thing I agreed to was the document I

sent to you that I signed. The only contract I even saw was the The Funder

contract I sent to you that I did not sign or agree to.

As far as his comment about No One Else wanted to help me....I told them

from the start I was not in desperate need for this lease and terms was a

major factor. I have owned these barges since they were built. I also own

the company who built them. They are worth $26,000 each. They only cost me

$19,300 each. Why would I agree to pay $40,000 each? Feel free to check my

credit and you will see I don't need any help from SC Superbroker . I own

four different companies and make a good living (without having to rip

people off).”

******’s reaction:

“If this is true he lied to us and would of committed fraud. He NEVER

told us he owned the company that manufactured the barges. He said be

purchased them from a 3rd party.

There's nothing to settle. We haven't heard from Mr. Applicant 3 is over a

year. He's never even asked for his money back. We told him the last

time we did doc's that there's no refund for him. This has been

perpetrated by Broker 2. He's using you to try to cause us trouble.

We no longer accept his business. He obviously knew that Mr. Applicant 3 was

the manufacture of the equipment and tried to deceive everyone. “

From Broker 2:

“Sounds like *******will not or can not pay these

folks back. Applicant 3 is right, both of us were promised

on numerous occasions as was Mr. Applicant 2the "the check

was in the mail". My fear is there are others out

there.

“We told Superbroker Ops Person from the outset the barges were

manufactured by Mr. Applicant 3's other company. He then

requested and received taxes from that Corporation.

Mr. Applicant 2is a sad case in that we were all misled up

until the end. Because of the ongoing delays, he lost

his haul contract for the new trailer but has since

found new work for it.”

Leasing News again tried for a settlement of $500. Mr.

SC Superbroker said “no” again.

“You are so wrong!!! All other proposals I've seen from other finance

companies that outline (as you call it) have the credit process fees

range from $1,750- $2,500. I only have $1,000 and I've approved the

deal and have doc'd it twice. I've showed you all the reasons why were

right but you won't listen to them. He signed the proposal saying we

can change the terms. He signed the proposal saying he will pay for

underwriting cost and time. He signed the proposal saying that ALL

deposit become the property of SC SUPERBROKER once an approval is given either Verbally or in Written!!!! What else do you need. You should run this

past your superiors before printing this”

Since The Funder was involved, we contacted The Funder

of the company, who said he was quite aware of Applicant 3,

and requested we wait to see if he could make a settlement with SC Superbroker

SC Superbroker on another matter, and if he could not, would give us a statement

to utilize as an “alert” on Leasing News.

In the meantime, we advised Broker 2 to join the National Association

of Equipment Leasing Brokers for the “fellowship, education, and for

funder comfort level.”

August 13, he responded: “I am new member. Thanks for the push.”

It is most likely the case that the Super Broker spent more than $1,000 in cost

and time on this; the lessee is quite wealthy; he also was the manufacturer

of the equipment and whether explained or not in the deal, he was quite

well off, and to pursue the matter of $1,000, especially to be sued over

this, Ken Greene said was not a good business decision on our part.

At first, the Funder wanted to make a comment, but after reviewing the matter

with its leasing counsel:

“We wrote our piece with the intention of protecting our reputation and clearing our name rather than going on the offensive... We agree with you and Ken Greene that there is a significant amount of hearsay in these stories.”

The Funder’s “alert” with names removed::

“ (We) booked a lease from SC Superbroker in ***** of last year and the lessee became very upset that SC Superbroker wouldn’t return a separate commitment fee for an additional financing request that didn’t get done (this second transaction was not reviewed by us.).

“After a lot of discussion we acted in good faith and took the unusual step of fronting the refund of this $10k plus commitment fee to the lessee ourselves. We did this to keep a good relationship with the lessee.

“We have yet to be repaid in full from SC Superbroker. We have heard from several sources that SC Superbroker is using The Funder credit policy changes as an excuse for not returning commitment fees, these claims are entirely untrue. To have someone say bad things about us when we have gone the extra mile to correct bad a situation with a lessee is completely unacceptable to us. The SC superbroker should not point to us if they are withholding money that an applicant rightly deserves.”

Coda: Here were three complaints and an “alert.” If Leasing News receives

more complaints about “Advance Rentals” being held by this company, we

may inform readers about the name of the SC superbroker and his company as it will show a pattern. In the meantime, we wish the company the best and hope it walks the narrow path.

Fourth Complaint:

“These guys marketed us hard to do our turn downs. It appears that they were using a NAELB (National Association of Equipment Leasing Broker) list.

“They received commitment Fees on three of my lessee and promised to send out docs and after two weeks, nothing. They rarely answer the phone or talk to your now.

They say they are sending the docs, but that was over two weeks ago.”

( Name With Held )

Leasing News has not received any complaints about this company at this time.

In their “Lease Proposal” letter it states, “Should the proposed Lessee not honor any approval, with terms listed on commitment with 60 days of the date of the approval then the Proposal Deposit becomes non refundable and goes to the account of ************* or its assignee as liquidated damages.”

Since the document was accepted on July 27, 2003, the company has until September 29^th, Monday, as the paragraph continues, “ Should our credit department decline the

proposal, the entire amount of the Commitment Deposit should be refunded to the Lessee with 72 hours.”

This goes back to the NAELB “philosophy” of asking the Bonanno Question:

“Is the funder/super broker a member of NAELB?” The gist being if they

are not, you are basically on your own.

Ironically, the present NAELB legal counsel Barry S. Marks covers this exact subject of commitment letters and time period in his book:

“Power Tools for Successful Leasing”

The acclaimed book adopted for Equipment Leasing Association workshops, and on the recommended reading list for CLP and CAUCUS certification programs, as well as Leasing News book recommendation.

Both titles are available through year-end at the reduced price of $59.95 each, with shipping and handling waived.

Orders may be placed by phone (815.753.1116), secure fax (630.365.5602) or email (phdleasing@fastmail.fm)

In addition, over 70 leasing web sites and a dozen leasing articles are available for complimentary download at www.leasingpress.com

James M. Johnson, Ph.D.
Graduate School, Northern Illinois University
www.leasingpress.com

Barry S. Marks, Esq.
Berkowitz, Lefkovits, Isom & Kushner
www.leasingpress.com

This perhaps would have saved the broker a lot of time, his customer, his vendor,

his frustration, and for $59.95 ( ask them to waive the shipping and handling

and I bet they will, especially for an NAELB member ,) this is money very

well spent. The book is not only for the sales department, but is recommended

reading for all those employed in the leasing industry.

Attorneys Who Specialize in Leasing

California - statewide: CA "ELA"

5-attorney creditors rights law firm, in biz 25 yrs +, specialize all aspects of creditor representation. Primarily represent equipment lessors & funders,plus collection and creditor rep. in bankruptcy. Email:phemar@hemar.com

California - statewide: Encino, CA. "ELA"

24 Attorney AV-rated Lawfirm representing the Leasing Industry for over 25 Years. We specialize in Lease-enforcement, collection and representation in Bankruptcy Court. email:sjenkins@hemar-rousso.com

Connecticut, Southern New England:
EVANS, FELDMAN & BOYER, LLC Collections, litigation, documentation, portfolio sales and financing, bankruptcy. We represent many of the national and local leasing companies doing business in this state. Past chairman EAEL legal committee. Competitive rates. email: rcfeldman@snet.net EAEL

Los Angeles -statewide: CA "ELA "

Practice limited to collections, bankruptcy and problem accounts resolution. Decades of experience. 10-lawyer firm dedicated to serving you. Call Ronald Cohn, Esq. (818)591-2121 or email. Email: rrcohn@aol.com

Los Angeles, Statewide: CA. "ELA"
Aggressive creditors rights law firm specializing in equipment leasing handling collection matters on a contingency, fixed fee or hourly basis. email:RGarwacki@prodigy.net

NY Metro and National: Hackensack, NY

Attorney specializing in equipment lease matters for at least 10 years with a 50-State operating network of attorneys experienced in leasing matters. Email:wuscher@uqur.com "ELA"

National: http://www.leaselawyer.com/

Full staff of attorneys and legal assistants work with Group Leader Barry S. Marks to ensure prompt, cost-effective responses to client needs: Email:bsm@blik.com

National: Coston & Lichtman: Business attorneys serving the lease-finance industry since 1980. Transactional, documentation, corporate; workouts, litigation, bankruptcy. Chicago & Florida offices. Jim Coston, CLP (Members: ELA/UAEL/MAEL)

email: Jcoston@costonlaw.com

Northern California - Statewide: CA "EAEL" "ELA" San Francisco expertise at San Rafael,CA prices; practice limited to equipment leasing and finance with 22 years experience, testimonials. Ken Greene, Esq. 415-721-7900 kgreene100@aol.com

These are “free” ads to attorneys who belong to an equipment leasing

association, and therefore indicate their “specialty.” Please go to:

http://64.125.68.90/LeasingNews/PostingFormAttorney.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Press Release ####################################

TCF Prepays $804 Million of Fixed-Rate Borrowings

TCF Financial Corporation (NYSE: TCB) announced that it has prepaid $804 million of fixed-rate borrowings. These borrowings had an average interest rate of 5.70% and an average remaining maturity of 13 months and are being replaced with lower-cost borrowings with terms of 6 to 18 months.

The total cost of prepaying the borrowings was $37.8 million ($24.6 million after-tax) and will reduce third quarter 2003 diluted earnings per share by approximately 35 cents. TCF management anticipates these prepayment costs will be substantially offset by reduced future interest expense on the new borrowings.

"Prepaying this high-rate debt makes sense given the current low interest rate environment," said William A. Cooper, Chairman and CEO. "We are now much better positioned for future growth in net interest income."

TCF is a Wayzata, Minnesota-based national financial holding company with $11.8 billion in assets. TCF has more than 390 banking offices in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and Indiana. Other TCF affiliates provide leasing and equipment finance, mortgage banking, brokerage, and investments and insurance sales.

CONTACT: Jason Korstange,

(952) 745-2755, or

Patricia L. Quaal,

(952) 745-2758,

both of TCF Financial Corporation

#### Press Release ####################################