We Defend You Against
Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC
If you're facing legal action initiated by BHG in New York, we're here to defend you. We defend against collection lawsuits, wage garnishments, and bank seizures. Receive a Summons and Complaint by Bankers Healthcare Group (BHG)? Feel free to complete the intake form below, and then book a consultation with Jesse Langel, Esq., LL.M. to discuss strategy.
Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC (BHG) is a financial services company that
provides loans and other financial products to healthcare professionals.
The company was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Syracuse, New
York. BHG offers a variety of financial products, including business loans,
personal loans, credit cards, and insurance. The company specializes in
providing loans to healthcare professionals, including doctors, dentists,
veterinarians, and pharmacists. BHG has been recognized as one of the
fastest-growing private companies in the United States by Inc. Magazine.
If you need to contact BHG, you can visit their website at
www.bankershealthcaregroup.com
If you need help, call us at (888) 271-7109, or complete this form.
The below cases were not handled by our office. We report on many New York collection cases.
Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC vs. Campbell: Denial of Defendants' Motion to Vacate Default Judgment in Breach of Contract Case
In a breach of contract action initiated by Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC (BHG) against the defendants, who represented themselves, attempted to vacate a default judgment. Their request was based on mistakes regarding court procedures and their claimed excusable neglect. The court, however, denied the motion to vacate the default judgment.
Key Points of Law:
- Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment due to reasons like mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
- Pro se status or lack of legal sophistication does not constitute "excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b)(1).
- To successfully vacate a default judgment, the burden is on the moving party to show that their default wasn't willful, they have a defensible claim, and that reopening the judgment wouldn't prejudice the other party.
Conclusion: The court held that the defendants' pro se status and their unfamiliarity with legal procedures didn't qualify as "excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b)(1). The defendants also failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claimed defenses. Hence, they couldn't meet the standards required to vacate the default judgment, leading the court to deny their motion.
Case Citation: Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Campbell, 5:19-cv-3 (GLS/ML) (Signed 06/05/2020).
Bankers Healthcare Group Contract: New York Courts Uphold Applicability of Local Civil Practice Laws
Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC initiated a breach of contract action against Defendant after a default on a promissory note. The note stated that its terms would be governed by Florida's laws, both substantive and procedural. The Supreme Court of Onondaga County denied the Bankers' motion for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff had to use Florida's procedural laws. However, the Appellate Division reversed, determining that the choice-of-law provision in the note didn't exclude the use of New York's procedural laws, especially since the note permitted venue in New York.
Three Key Points of Law:
- Freedom to contract is a significant public policy in New York, and courts generally enforce choice-of-law clauses.
- Contractual choice-of-law provisions typically apply only to substantive issues unless the parties specify otherwise.
- A choice-of-law provision indicating the use of another state's laws doesn't necessarily mean that state's procedural rules will govern court proceedings in New York, especially when the contract contemplates potential venue in New York.
Conclusion: The case emphasizes the importance of clarity in choice-of-law provisions in contracts. It highlights that even if a contract dictates the substantive laws of another state, it doesn't necessarily dictate the procedural laws, especially when the contract allows for actions in New York courts. This distinction is vital for parties to understand when drafting and entering contracts to ensure their intentions are accurately represented. Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Pasumbal, 178 N.Y.S.3d 847, 847–49 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept. 2022).
Alleged Deceptive Lending: BHG and Pinnacle Bank Accused of Misrepresenting Consumer Loans as Business Loans
Bankers Healthcare Group (BHG) and Pinnacle Bank faced a class action lawsuit, accusing them of issuing expensive loans to consumers, misleadingly presented as business loans to obscure alleged "predatory" lending practices. The suit claimed the lenders knowingly violated multiple consumer protection laws, including the federal Truth in Lending Act, by masking these loans as "commercial loans" to individuals they knew were not planning to start businesses.
Complaint Specifics:
- The plaintiffs alleged that BHG and Pinnacle Bank marketed and provided large personal loans to middle-income consumers while falsely disguising them as business loans to non-existent "sole proprietorships".
- By classifying the loans as commercial rather than consumer loans, the defendants allegedly avoided having to make required disclosures and follow consumer protection laws.
- The loans allegedly had predatory terms including high interest rates, excessive fees, prepayment penalties, and broad security interests in borrowers' property.
- The named plaintiffs claim they were misled into taking out these loans for personal purposes like debt consolidation.
- The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for failing to make required disclosures for consumer loans and failing to inform borrowers of their right to rescind loans secured by their homes.
- The plaintiffs are seeking class action status to represent others who took out similar loans from the defendants. They are requesting damages, rescission rights, and injunctive relief to stop the alleged practices.
- The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The case is marked "dismissed" as of May 22, 2024. See the docket here.
New York Court Dismisses BHG Case for Lack of Jurisdiction Despite Forum Selection Clause
This case involves a dispute over a financing agreement between an out-of-state medical practice and a healthcare financing company. The court addressed issues of personal jurisdiction and forum selection when the defendants had no connection to New York, despite a clause in the agreement allowing for New York venue.
Key Legal Principles:
- Personal jurisdiction over non-domiciliaries requires that the defendant transacts business within New York or contracts to supply goods or services in the state (CPLR § 302(a)(1)).
- General Obligations Law § 5-1402 allows non-New York parties to litigate in New York courts if: a) The contract chooses New York law to govern (at least in part) b) The contract involves at least $1 million c) The parties agree to submit to New York jurisdiction
- Without meeting the requirements of § 5-1402, a forum selection clause designating New York courts may be deemed invalid for non-resident parties.
Conclusion: The court dismissed the case for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. It found that the defendants had insufficient contacts with New York for personal jurisdiction. Regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the court ruled that the forum selection clause was invalid because the contract chose Florida law (not New York law), the amount in dispute was less than $1 million, and the requirements of General Obligations Law § 5-1402 were not met. This case highlights the importance of carefully drafting choice of law and forum selection clauses in interstate contracts, emphasizing that merely designating New York as a potential forum is insufficient without also selecting New York law and meeting other statutory requirements.
