Sky Business Credit

As a woman owned small business that has been providing commercial financing for nearly 10 years, we take pride in providing exemplary service and funding to other small businesses. We strive to ensure our legal documents, including our proposal letters, are clear and straightforward as it is important to us that other small businesses understand the financing contract and choose to engage our services. We encourage and expect our clients to review our documentation with their attorney. As part of the SBC transparency, our proposal letter clearly sets forth our rates and the terms of our proposal. We disclose our rates up front and in plain language because we want our clients to understand our fees - we never want our clients to be surprised after starting the financing relationship. We are willing to provide financing in instances where many other financing companies will not. In this instance, the complaining company executed our 1-page straightforward proposal letter that (1) explicitly authorized SBC to file a financing statement; and (2) clearly stated the SBC due diligence fee, which was identified in the proposal as due and owing whether or not the complaining company elected to move forward with funding from SBC. As consistent with our proposal letters, the one at issue in this matter specifically states that “By executing this letter, Client hereby authorizes SBC to file any financing statements that SBC requires to perfect a security interest in the assets of Client in anticipation of a purchase agreement to provide security for payment of all costs and expenses incurred by SBC…Client acknowledges that the above referenced Due Diligence Fee is due upon execution of this document and will be deducted from the initial funding. If SBC is unable to fund the Facility, the amount is immediately due to reimburse SBC for expenses incurred.” Contrary to the allegations made against us, the filing of the UCC was contractual authorized by the company in advance and certainly not “illegal.” No company, including the complaining company, is “forced” to execute a proposal letter with us and we actually have no way to force a company to sign our documentation. We understand that some entities simply lack the requisite business acumen to retain our services, and would then expect our proposal letter to simply be declined at no commitment or cost to the company.
We also point out that it is not uncommon for finance companies offering our type of services to request that their expenses be reimbursed once a proposal is signed and underwriting has commenced as, at that time, our finance company begins incurring expenses in connection with the underwriting. As a small business, we need to ensure our initial fees are covered in the event, as here, a company elects not to move forward with our services after executing the proposal letter. The complaining company was free not to move forward with our legal documentation, but is expected to adhere to the terms of the proposal letter it signed.
Without reservation, our firm will routinely provide at least four customer referrals to businesses interested in our services. Here, the complaining company never contacted our referrals.
We will continue to provide needed financing for small businesses to support growth and opportunity to our clients.