Universal Funding Corporation

Wow, where to start. The term sheet Universal Funding sent stated we would pay a 1.52% factoring fee. Universal Funding failed to mention (and used dubious verbiage in the contract) that they would also charge an additional 1.52% "processing fee." This alone doubles your actual cost to factor. Then Universal Funding will not release your reserve funds (the remaining funds from an invoice that they factored, which for us was 20%) unless you factor more invoices. They actually withheld about $50k of ours (most of which was non factored funds) because they wanted us to set up more customers to factor. Then I just found a $1300 "non factor fee" and a $3k "MVR" fee, which is apparently for not factoring enough with them. This business is beyond shady. We did not get setup with them because we were desperate for funds, we did because their proposition made business sense, and they touted themselves as a "family business." Now they are trying to withhold $25,000 of my own non factored money from me. If you are reading this, run far far away.

Review: In the month of December, 2013 I had a need for financing to grow my company;[redacted]. I did a google search and I came across Universal Funding, a spokane Washington based company that specializes in Accounts Receivables financing. On December 3rd, 2013 I called the 800 number on the website and,I talked to a [redacted] a factoring specialist. I explained to him our financing need. I went ahead and submitted an application to him for approval. On the application and through followup phone calls I explained to [redacted] that we did have an SBA Loan with [redacted] and that the loan had encumbered all the assets of the business including Accounts Receivables. [redacted] told me to worry about it and that all I had to do was make a request to PNC to subordinate their receivables interest. He told me he had done hundreds of these releases and it would not be an issue. He forwarded me a form for PNC to complete. I told him I would make the request to PNC. [redacted] followed up through phone and email to provide me with a proposal for financing and a term sheet. The term sheet specifically stated that Universal Funding would need to have a senior lien position on the Accounts Receivables. [redacted] and another Universal Funding employee [redacted] requested additional information on my company including Accounts Receivables aging schedules, invoices, tax returns and insurance information. At about that time I told [redacted] that [redacted] had refused to release their 1st lien position on Accounts Receivables. He told me again not to worry about it and he re-sent to me a form to send to them. A few days later, Universal Funding followed up with me, with an underwriting decision which approved my company for a $800,000 line of credit, factoring $400,000 /month. They proceeded to send closing documents for execution. The documents included a Purchase and Assignment agreement and a security agreement. They told me as soon as we executed the forms we were good to go and we could start factoring our receivables. We executed the documents. After that, I went ahead and explained to [redacted] that [redacted] had refused again to release the 1st lien position on our receivables. He went ahead and told me again not to worry about it and all I had to do was send them a form which he emailed me again. For the third time [redacted] refused to release their 1st lien position. 4 Months later, we got an email from [redacted] compliance attorney for Universal Funding, claiming that we did not live up to our purchase and assignment and security agreement we had signed and that we owe Universal Funding $165,600 early termination fees. I explained to [redacted] the process we went through and that [redacted] could not release their 1st lien position and that is why we could not do business with them. He told me clearly that they were getting ready to sue us for the money. He told me the security agreement I signed called for us to put them on 1st position for all assets of the business and if we had any existing loans we had to pay them off. I told him, that is not what was agreed on the term sheet or in any conversations I had with [redacted]. He told me it didn't matter and the lawsuit was moving forward. Universal Funding mis-represented themselves from the very beginning with an intent to defraud us. After doing further research on them online I found lots complaints from clients they have defrauded.They used the bait of approval to induce us to sign contract and security documents with the intent of defrauding us. They know that by filing a lawsuit we would incur legal costs to defend ourselves and we would be inclined to settle with them. We will appreciate any help the Revdex.com can provide us in settling this and stopping this company from their unfair business practices.Desired Settlement: Universal withdraw its demand and acknowledge that Dominion Universal never consummated an arrangement to factor the receivables of Dominion.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern,

On December 3, 2013, Universal Funding emailed a Term Sheet

to this client. The Term Sheet (see

attached) stated that Universal Funding required “Accounts Receivable 1st

priority position on UCC-1 financing statement.” This client’s statement acknowledges this

when he says “The term sheet specifically stated that Universal Funding would

need to have a senior lien position on the Accounts Receivables.”

This client claims that Universal Funding had sent him a

form on two separate occasions, before his account was approved, for him to

send to [redacted]. However, this never

occurred.

On December 20, 2013, this client signed the Purchase and

Assignment Agreement with Universal Funding.

On January 7, 2014, this client signed the Security

Agreement. The Security Agreement states

“If Universal is not a first position secured creditor as to the receivables

(and other collateral), Client shall comply with Universal’s requests so as to

cause Universal to become a first position secured creditor of Client. This shall include paying off any debts owed

to other priority secured creditors within ninety (90) days of this document

being executed.”

On January 9, 2014, Universal Funding offered a

subordination option to this client, rather than require that the priority

position creditor be paid off.

For the following 3 months after closing documents were

signed, Universal Funding attempted to contact this client 10 times using both

phone and email. All of the attempts to

contact the client are documented in email and phone logs. Universal Funding was told that the owners

were either unavailable or Universal Funding left messages; however, the client

never responded.

On May 23, 2014, Universal Funding sent a Notice of Default

to this client as there were fully signed closing documents between Universal

Funding and this client, and the client was refusing to communicate with

Universal Funding. A response was

requested by May 29, 2014. Although the

client alleges in the complaint that Universal Funding threatened to sue in

this letter, this is false. The client

never responded to the letter.

On May 30, 2014, Universal Funding sent a Final Notice of

Default to this client. The letter stated

that [redacted] continues to fail to respond to Universal Funding, and

that Universal Funding will move forward to enforce its security interest if

this client does not respond by June 4, 2014.

At this point for the last five (5) months, Universal Funding had

reserved $800,000.00 of funds for this client’s account, pursuant to the signed

closing documents, and Universal Funding was losing revenue on these funds as

the client continued to fail to meet its contract obligations.

On June 1, 2014, for the first time in over five (5) months,

this client responded to Universal Funding.

One of the owners stated that the contract was over because the priority

position secured creditor would not subordinate its security interest. Universal Funding then explained that the

subordination was just one available option that Universal Funding was

offering; however, it was just one possible option because the two parties

already agreed to pay off the priority position secured creditor within 90

days. The owner then said he would call

back the following day.

On June 3, 2014, the client emailed Universal Funding and

said that they were referring this to their attorney. Universal Funding emailed a response asking

for the attorney’s contact information.

The attorney then emailed Universal Funding asking for time to review

the situation. Universal Funding then

agreed with the client’s attorney that the attorney would respond by June 10th.

On June 10, 2014, the client’s attorney sent a letter to

Universal Funding. The letter though

stated that there wasn’t a contract between the parties because the priority

position secured creditor wouldn’t subordinate.

The letter though disregarded the fact that the two parties agreed in

writing to pay off the priority position secured creditor within 90 days.

On June 10, 2014, Universal Funding responded to the

client’s attorney. The response letter

quoted the section of the closing documents where the secured creditor position

was discussed.

On June 11, 2014, the client’s attorney responded. The attorney was again confusing the

issue. The attorney stated that

Universal Funding offered a subordination on January 9th and since

it offered a subordination, rather than requiring that the priority position

creditor be paid off, that a contract didn’t exist between the parties. This obviously is a misunderstanding of the

written agreement between the parties, and it’s also a misunderstanding of the

law.

On June 17, 2014, Universal Funding responded to the

client’s attorney. The letter detailed

the agreement that was reached between the parties that the client specifically

agreed to pay off the priority position secured creditor within 90 days. It also again reiterated that Universal

Funding only offered a subordination, rather than a payoff of the priority

position secured creditor, as a possible option that would end up being

beneficial to the client.

On June 18, 2014, Universal Funding then received this Revdex.com

complaint.

The client also states in this Revdex.com complaint that Universal

Funding has defrauded clients in the past.

This is offensive and completely untrue.

There is a company with a similar name that is completely unrelated to

Universal Funding, which this client apparently is viewing on the

internet. Universal Funding is family-owned company that provides a valuable

and honest service to its clients.

Universal Funding reserved $800,000.00 per month for a

period of 12 months to comply with its obligations to this client and it has

lost a significant amount of revenue on this account, not including the

numerous employees and man hours dedicated to this account. We don’t know why this client failed to

respond to Universal Funding for over five (5) months; however, it appears they

just wanted out of their contract because they no longer believed that they had

a need for financing. We’ve always been

ready, able, and willing to meet our contract obligations, but this client

either just doesn’t respond for months at a time or files a Revdex.com complaint to

circumvent their obligations. We always

have been able to and still desire to carry out the contract. We ask that the client now fulfill its

obligations as well.

Thank you.

Consumer

Response:

Universal Funding has made statements in its response that are incorrect. In addition, there is a website where other companies have complained about Universal’s tactics,

[redacted]/

This website identifies Universal Funding and has the company’s address in Spokane, WA. Also, it has a photograph of [redacted], Universal’s attorney.

Universal’s posted response does not contain a proposal to resolve this dispute.

Review: My contract with Universal Funding expired approximately 2.5 years ago. They are still cashing checks from my customers and not informing me. This happened a few times last year and I just found out it happened again. It was a small payment from a customer that they cashed and have kept since July without telling me. When I contacted them asking about this and any other funds they might have deposited from my customers without telling me, they said they will send me the money for this customer. I know from the past, that they will not tell me about any other money they have of mine until I find out about the exact money and then they will release it after keeping a percentage for themselves.

My contract ended over 2 years ago and they are STILL depositing money from my customers and never telling anyone until they are found outDesired Settlement: I want:

1) To be advised of any and all funds they have which are mine.

2) Them to STOP depositing money from my customers. They can return it to the customer, forward it to me, or even destroy the check.

3) If they do take money meant for me, please forward it to me in it's entirety

Business

Response:

This former client still continues to file Revdex.com complaints against Universal Funding by making false claims. This is not the first time [redacted] has done so, and likewise, her complaints continue to be false and slanderous.

On February 13, 2012, this account was closed out. [redacted] agreed in writing that if any future checks are received and cashed by Universal Funding that Universal Funding would charge a $30 processing fee. The vast majority of checks that Universal Funding received after this account was closed out were either returned to the debtor or forwarded to the client – without any charged fee. In fact, Universal Funding has not deposited a check on this account since July 2, 2013. Since this former client has proven to be difficult time and time again, Universal Funding diligently tries to never deposit a check from one of their customers.

Unfortunately, on November 6, 2014, Universal Funding received a check made out to one of the D.B.A.’s of this former client. The check did not have the former client’s corporation name on the check. Further, the check was dated October 31, 2014, and a copy has been attached to this response. However, [redacted] falsely claims that the check was “kept since July without telling me.” This is not even possible since the check was issued on October 31, 2014. Due to the check being made out to a D.B.A. of this former client (from over two and a half years ago) and Universal Funding never purchasing any invoices from the debtor whose name was on the check, Universal Funding did not associate the check with this former client. As a result, Universal Funding waited for the check to clear the bank, and then the check was red flagged for further review and investigation.

On December 4, 2014, at 5:20pm, this former client emailed Universal Funding about this payment, which was for $79.50. The following day, Universal Funding researched the payment, confirmed the payment was for this former client, emailed several responses to this former client, and forwarded the funds that same day in full, without any charges.

The following day, on December 6, 2014, Universal Funding received this Revdex.com complaint. We’ve done pretty much everything we can think of to stay far away from this former client, due to her history of continued Revdex.com complaints and continued slander. However, even after two and a half years after doing business with this client, this client is still unable to have her customers send payments directly to her and she still proves increasingly difficult.