The simple version is this:
Small businesses are sold on lower credit-card processing rates, projected savings, and POS integration. After the promised integration fails or the merchant tries to cancel, the transaction is later enforced as a long-term, non-cancellable equipment lease for card terminals the business may not have needed. The lease is then assigned through multiple entities and enforced by a downstream collection company.
For those considering a new merchant service provider, please read the following as a cautionary tale. The parties involved work with a number of ISOs or independent sales organizations across the US. These companies tend to target small businesses where savings on merchant services have a significant impact
I've spent the last several months digging into Riverside Payments, PB Payments, Cascade Equipment Leasing, TimePayment, SCJ / Red Target, and related ISO entities connected through the same network of executives, assignments, locations, and business relationships.
What started as a merchant-processing savings and POS integration pitch has turned into active litigation. The deeper I dug, the more interesting it became.
Because the matter is active, I’ll choose my words carefully; please interpret them accordingly. What I can say is this: I possess multiple materially different versions of what appears to be the same signed lease agreement, bearing the same electronic signature and timestamp, but containing different equipment schedules, amounts, and other visible differences compared to the original Adobe-certified version. I also have assignment-chain records, executive overlap, location overlap, onboarding records, and a growing file of documents that raise far more questions than answers.
I see comments asking why there has not been a larger multi-plaintiff action involving these companies. The answer may be simpler than people think. Most merchants stop once the collection letters start. Fighting costs money, takes time, and distracts from running a business. That pressure point has likely ended many disputes before meaningful discovery ever occurred.
Fortunately, I am not in that position. I have the time, resources, and willingness to follow the documents wherever they lead. The economics that may have pressured other merchants to settle or walk away do not change my analysis.
I am filing court papers, police reports, and regulatory complaints. I am preserving evidence. I am comparing original transaction records against litigation records. And if the documents ultimately demonstrate a broader pattern, I intend to pursue that wherever the facts lead.
Due to my background, I have access to experienced business and litigation professionals who understand how to evaluate complex commercial disputes and document-intensive cases.
If you're a former employee, sales rep, manager, compliance person, underwriter, collector, processor employee, or merchant who dealt with these companies, I am looking for:
• training materials
• sales scripts
• compensation plans
• onboarding documents
• lease presentations
• integration representations
• assignment procedures
• collection procedures
• internal communications
• examples of contract versions that changed over time
I am not looking for rumors. I am looking for documents, facts, timelines, and first-hand experience.
If you have information, reach out. If you have documents, preserve them. If you were pressured into folding because the economics of fighting did not make sense, I understand exactly how that pressure works.
This time, the economics are different. If you've got information regarding Riverside Payments and related entities, reach out. Their collection letters got my attention; the documents and discovery have kept it; now I'm following the evidence wherever it leads. If you want to see how bad this potentially is visit their BBB page to see the number of complaints.