Twenty Four Seven Funding review: never pay beforehand 2

What do you mean they arent registered? Can you be more specific.. because I have some issues I am researching .. They swindled money from my parents.. and I have taken over thier issues...

My name is Kelly D. Fontaine and I am the Principal of "Twenty Four Seven Funding". Twenty Four Seven Funding Incorporated is a Nevada Corporation filed on 09/02/2008 with the Secretary of State Ross Miller State of Nevada at 206 North Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada. Entity Number #EO562782008-3 and Document Number #[protected]-29. Kelly Fontaine owns 750 shares as of 01/03/2009. TWENTY FOUR SEVEN FUNDING is a registered business in Queens, County New York State of New York as of 03/06/2009 Index Number 786/09.WE ARE NOT Twenty Four Seven Fundling, LLC. clients do pay us a refundable retainer.
*******Retainers versus Funders Due Diligence Deposits and Commitment Fees******
We are providing the client with a specific funder who can offer financing to them based on the funders review of the representations made by the borrower with respect to loan size, geography, credit profile type and mix of collateral etc. The retainer paid to us by the borrower is not a deposit to be used for due diligence but rather an engagement fee to arrange for the specific financing.

We require this retainer to protect ourselves against situations where our borrower has inadvertently misrepresented the value of collateral or the cash flows to cover debt service. It would also protect us in a case where the funder finds they cannot perfect a security interest in the collateral being offered or the borrower cannot provide the necessary documentation that the funder requires.

Because we do not require any exclusivity with respect to our fee agreement, the retainer also protects us in the event that the borrower obtains financing elsewhere, secures an equity infusion, or simply decides that they do not require the financing at this time. If the loan does not close for any reason, other that our inability to produce a capable funder, then the retainer covers our time, effort and expense regarding the work done by us.

We represent hundreds of funders across the country and all generally require the borrower to cover their costs of due diligence prior to loan closing. The only exception to this rule is a local bank ( if the business is bankable ) who typically will not need such a deposit. If funders were to pay the due diligence costs they would often waste their money traveling to the borrowers company or property and performing appraisals and audits on situations where the results of that due diligence were such that the loan cannot be closed.

If the funder were willing to pay for the examination and investigation necessary to close the loan, borrowers who have problems might not disclose them in hopes that the funder would not discover these issues that may have previously caused the loan to be rejected.
The funder will not require their due diligence deposit until they have issued their formal proposal outlining the specific terms and conditions that will apply based on the representations made to them by the borrower. The purpose of the due diligence is to allow the funder to confirm that the representations made by the borrower are true and correct so that they can close the loan.

Funders due diligence may include a site inspection at your company focusing on your back office operations relative to the performance of your accounts receivable. Particularly they will want to examine the exact service or product provided, how you bill, to whom you are billing, the net collectable amount paid to you after allowances and deductions, any potential offsets due other parties or issues that could lead to offsets and the historical performance of your AR's collect ability.

Clearly, as the funder is typically expert in such matters you can benefit from such expertise as it relates to the efficient billing of your accounts and the ability to diminish underpayments etc. Real Estate, equipment and inventory appraisals that are more than 6 months old will likely need to be updated or in some cases may need to be redone.

The funder will also be concerned with the character of the borrower (both from a company perspective as well as from the principals perspective) as it relates to previous issues of fraud or bankruptcy etc. They will also need to clearly confirm the viability of the company going forward and any legal issues that might cause them to suffer a loss with respect to the loan to be consummated.

This could include the possible inability of the funder to obtain a first lien against the collateral or the borrower’s inability to cover debt service etc. The funder will be available to explain in detail what could cause them not to close the loan so that there are no surprises once you have agreed to their terms and conditions and before you pay for the due diligence.

Most funders make the deposit refundable minus specific expenses in the unlikely event that they are unable to conclude the loan. Due diligence deposits vary widely from funder to funder but are generally in the $2, 500 to $25, 000 range. A loan transaction of $10, 000, 000 or more might require a due diligence deposit of greater than $25, 000.

Once the due diligence is complete some funders will issue a commitment to fund at which time the borrower will be required to post a commitment fee which will be around 1 point on the loan amount. If the borrower walks away from the transaction prior to closing they will forfeit this fee. Some funders will go straight to closing after completion of due diligence and will not require a commitment fee. Normally, once the commitment fee is paid the only steps to be taken prior to funding would be the negotiation and execution of closing documents.

In respect to the added comment by Jenny What...see here ...>>>This is the posting that were done 3 times by the borower's family.
We also note in this email the broker DEWYANE DAVIS - CAN BE CONTACTED AT [protected].
HE WILL VERIFY THAT THE CLIENT LIED AND HAD LOST HER PROPERTIES MONTHS BEFORE THE BROKER CAME TO US WITH THIS DEAL..
HIS COMMENTS TO THEM ARE ENCLOSED. THE BANK FORCLOSED ON HER AND SHE NEVER PAID THEM.
THE FILE WAS ENT TO WALT WEATHERINGTON AND HE WAS THE FUNDER...ONCE WE DISCOVERD HE COULD NOT DO THIS LOAN ..BECAUSE THE CILIENT LIED AND HAD ALREADY LOST HER PROPERTIES AND THE BANK WANTED HER OUT WITH NO NEGOTIATIONS OFR EXTENTIONS . STHE CLIENT HAD 5 EXTENSIONS PRIOR TO BEING INTRODUCED TO OUR COMPANY
SIMUTANEOUSLY WE CUT HIM OFF AS A SURCE AND IMMEDIATELY REFUNDED THE MONIES.
THIS IS RARE AS mIKE WILL TELL YOU, MOST OF OUR FUNDING PORTFOLIO'S CAN ACTUALLY DO WHAT WE PUT IN WRITTING.UNLESS THE CLIENT MISREPRESENTS.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kelly Fontaine
Date: Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Subject: SCAMBOOK: Internet response to the Thornhills and posting as per a family member and not the actual client]
To: dispute@scambook.com
Cc: kelly

Miss Julie,
Please note this file as it is on your Internet page/site as per the other request this information is inaccurate as the notations below and note the customer actually responded to our firm and agreed that this matter was settled and that the funds were remitted back to the client.
Your posting is inaccurate as a family member posted this as jenster64506 on 12-09-2012 is incorrect.
As the same family admits and states for the legal record in their response (BELOW)..THEY RECEIVED THE REFUND and the matter was closed.
The issue was Walt Weathering ton the private funder who stated that he could not secure the funding thus, we returned the clients funds immediately after that confirmation was known to our company.
Please correct your records immediately as this inaccurate information effects our business relations as we have resolved the issue and we were not at fault (SEE BELOW)
CC: Brian Ruffino Esquire
CC: LEGAL

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Subject: Internet response to the Thornhills and posting as per a family member and not the actual client]
To: Kelly Fontaine

As noted the funder was private investor Walt Weatherington and as soon as he could not do as our formal docuemnts we returend the retainer.
This is verifiable and the broker who sent the deal attest that the client made a false misrepresentation to them.
They attempted to file suit against the introducing broker after they misrepresented and the introducing broker sent his ot our firm
I hope this satifies your internet postings on our firm.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DeWayne Davis
Date: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Subject: FW: thanks
To: KELLY

Kelly, this is an email I got from Thornhills. This is a lie. I haven't had any contact for a long time when she said that she had lost her properties and was in a last ditch effort to see if I call the lender to see if she could get an extension. I never responded to this request.

You can see the last time I had emailed a response to Mr. Thornhill.
DeWayne [protected]
________________________________________
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:07:56 -0800

Subject: Re: thanks
To: kclending@live.com
Mr. Davis, 12-31-2012
Mrs. Thornhill has contacted me . She told me that you had asked how she was doing . Mrs. Thornhill has been advised by a legal consultant that she is not to answer any of your questions. It is taking a enormous amount of time to unravel what actually has happened. I I don’t know what relationship you have with these two individuals. I do know that with this entire ordeal, a lot of things are not adding up. I have got file after file of victims and false paperwork. Paperwork that doesn’t even have a legit address. Although, Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Weatherington did refund Mrs. Thornhill her money back that she had invested. However, I do believe that someone is responsible for the loss of her property. Until we have connected all ends that at this time is undetermined. Per Mrs. Thornhill’s request that is all she wanted to tell you.
Thank you,
COPY OF ORIGINAL
From: DeWayne Davis
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: thanks

TO GET A NEW LOAN IT WILL TAKE SOME WORK IN GETTING A LENDER TO BELIEVE WHY THIS ALL HAPPENED. IT WILL TAKE A HARD MONEY BAILOUT LENDER WHO'S INTEREST RATE MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE.

DEWAYNE, KEEP BELIEVING
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:53:26 -0800
From: debgreg52@yahoo.com
Subject: thanks
To: kclending@live.com
hi.wess...sorry to bother you told me to let you know still have not heard anything from the lawyer ...hoping we could still fine someone if we got some of the fees off...last time i talk to the lawyer on friday, , to try and have something he could give them to show them we had someone who could help us...thanks debbie

WE ASKED THE COMPANY SCAMBOOK AND INTERNET TO REMOVE THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS AND THE RESULTS WERE AS FOLLOWS:Gentlemen,
After all the facts ..we attempted to ask scambook ot remove and they stated a denial...(see below)...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kelly Fontaine
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Subject: Re2: Scambook Dispute: Dispute Denied- {OUR RESPONSE 04-29-2013}
To: Scambook Dispute
Cc: kelly

The complaints have been satisfied under your contract rules and should be removed!
The consumer basically states we have been satisfied by stating the monies were returned and we used the proper legal venues to do so and we have signed fee agreements by each to the clients stating...
"This agreement shall be deemed to have been made in and construed under the laws of the State of New York. Any dispute between the parties hereto, arising out of the subject matter of this Agreement, shall be adjudicated by arbitration in New York, NY by the American Arbitration Association. Judgment upon any award rendered there under may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof.Please sign and return this letter along with the retainer to signify your agreement with the above."

EACH CLIENT ADMITS SIGNING THIS AND BY RETURNING THE CLIENTS MONIES (WITH EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS NOT OUR FAULT BUT THE FUNDERS), as the clients basically note in their posts MONIES HAVE BEEN RETURNED .

BY ALLOWING THE POST is simply libel. Your notation to our firm stated once the consumer accepts and receives the relief offered their complaint would be removed. Well the consumers accepted the offer over 6 months ago.
We find that companies are motivated to resolve consumer complaints for many reasons, not the least of which are retaining customers, retaining market share, avoiding bad press and public relations, and avoiding potentially expensive and protracted litigation or investigation. Whatever your company's motivation, by resolving complaints through Business Resolve you can accomplish all of these things. That is, once a consumer accepts and receives the relief offered, their complaint will be removed from the Scambook platform. In that way, you not only satisfy a consumer who is motivated to communicate and complain to others about their dissatisfaction, but you also ensure that the reputation of your company stays intact with respect to complaints posted on Scambook.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Scambook Dispute wrote:
Hello, Unfortunately, your requests for removal through Dispute have been denied for the following complaints:
192346
93739
167177
147263
189020
147263
Scambook is not a law firm or a court. We are a neutral platform that enables our users to post their opinion and experiences about a particular business or person in hopes to receive a clear and valid resolution.

Our process is set in place to open lines of communication between a business or an individual and the consumer, with the ultimate goal of reaching a clear and valid resolution.
Scambook will not and cannot remove any posts simply because a business or individual claims that the post is “false” in their opinion. We invite those businesses and individuals to create a free account, and encourage them to participate in a dialogue with the consumer to correct factual inaccuracies, or help resolve the complaint.
Businesses, like consumers, provide insightful and helpful comments that are productive and mutually beneficial to both parties.
We hope this has clarified any questions you may have. If this did not answer your question or concern, please reply to this email or call our Business Resolve Department at the number below so we can better assist you in helping you understand how you can get these complaints resolved. Thank you.

Best regards,
Scambook Dispute Department
[protected]
******REFERENCES OF TRANSCTIONS CLOSED BY TWENTY FOUR SEVEN FUNDING*******

Dimitrios M. Fousteris- Trevor Cole Commercial Corp- [protected] (Ext. [protected] Lexington Avenue, New York New York

Richard Tynes-Maintenance Company in Washington, D. C. -[protected]/[protected], ($800k Refinance of an Operating Company)

Michael K. Ellis- -Asset Based Loan- Vessel -Relentless Sports Fishing, Rive Ridge, Louisiana-[protected], ($225, 000 Acquisition Vessel)

Dewayne Davis (broker)-[protected]

Dr. Harinderjit Singh [protected]($13.5M Refinance) of Sheraton in Augusta, Georgia

Angela Libman, Libman Realty, RI-[protected] ($800k Acquisition)

John Campbell, Old Cutters Inc, Hailey, Idaho [protected] ($2, 800, 000 Commitment to Acquire Note Raw Land

Shannon B. Bigelow- Bigelow Sand Blasting, IN -[protected]/[protected] (Bert) ($140k
Working Capital Loan–Equipment Financing

Richard A. Dillard, Hartford, Alabama-[protected] ($110, 000 Hard Money Closing on Dairy & Poultry Farm

--

Very Best Regards,

Kelly D. Fontaine

Managing Director

Twenty Four Seven Funding

1330 Avenue of Americas

New York, New York 10019

Phone: [protected]

Queens Office [protected]

Fax: [protected]

Email:TWENTYFOURSEVENFUNDINGLLC@gmail.com
Web:www.twentyfoursevenfundingllc

https://plus.google.com/u/0/112270609848235509612?tab=jX#112270609848235509612/posts