Atainit Inc

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Kilpatrick and Hart (K&H) introduced *** *** *** to a "lender" who would first require *** to pay a significant sum of money to trigger a loanNo standard lender does thisSo, Kilpatrick and Hart has still not introduced *** *** *** to a reference-able lender who has the ability to write a check for the loan That promise is what K&H used to induced *** into paying an $8,fee.*** would consider the matter resolved if K&H would either introduce them to a reference-able lender who has the ability to make the loan within a 10-day period contingent on successful due diligence or refund our initial $8,payment
Regards,
*** ***Consultant to *** *** ***

subsequent to receiving this complaint filed by the originator which we assume was also authorized by the applicant, the following positive summarized steps have occurred as documented herein and within the file:The originator, person who filed the complaint, called K&H and spoke to me....

The purpose of the call was to present a revised funding request.It was agreed to submit the information to the original conduit capital source ([redacted]) he and applicant were introduced to by K&H. Original conference call was January 18, 2016.Second conference call was arranged at 3:30 PM on February 24 with the originator, the applicant, the capital source and myself.All parties agreed to proceed with addressing funding upon executing required documents.As recently as Friday, February 28 the applicant and the principal of the capital source were communicating to address first round of funding of $5 million and subsequently second round of funding to be mutually agreed-upon.Therefore since we have continued to comply with the provisions of the agreement (CSAFA) executed by both parties, we would expect you to receive from the originator an email withdrawing his complaint. If you don't we will have no alternative but to halt ongoing communications between the principal of the capital source and the applicant. Also to voluntarily proceed with binding arbitration.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Nothing in Mr. H explanation refutes my client's two main points:1.Mr. H induced my client to hire K&H and pay an initial $8,000 fee by promising an introduction to a principal of a capital source that had the capability to fund a loan to my client, a loan that Mr. H knew needed to be completed by February 15, 2016.  (emails confirm this fact).2. We were not given, nor could we ascertain, 3rd party verification that the one person Mr. H introduced to my client has authority to write checks on behalf of any fund.  Putting aside that issue, this individual told my client that "his fund" could not make a loan by February 15, 2016.  That person re-confirmed his inability to fund within the prescribed time period in a subsequent email to me.  Mr. H has not introduced my client to any other principal of a capital source.My client and I believe that Kilpatrick & Hart's fraudulent inducement and their inability to perform is what this complaint is all about.
Regards, [redacted]