We Defend You Against

Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC

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. The company has also been recognized for its workplace culture and has been named one of the best places to work in Central New York. If you need to contact BHG, you can visit their website at www.bankershealthcaregroup.comor call them at (866) 297-4664. The address for BHG is 201 Solar Street, Syracuse, NY 13204. or call them at (866) 297-4664. The address for BHG is 201 Solar Street, Syracuse, NY 13204.

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. Our expertise is particularly in the realm of judgment-enforcement defense, be it wage garnishments, bank seizures, or receiving lawsuits (summons and complaints). We understand the challenges of managing credit card debt, medical bills, tuition fees, or other consumer-related debts. With flexible payment plans tailored to your situation, we stand ready to assist and support you in these trying times.

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.

Alleged Deceptive Lending: BHG and Pinnacle Bank Accused of Misrepresenting Consumer Loans as Business Loans

Bankers Healthcare Group (BHG) and Pinnacle Bank face 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 claims 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.

Three Key Points of Law:

1. It's unlawful under the Truth in Lending Act and other consumer protection laws to misrepresent consumer loans by disguising them as business loans.
2. Lenders must provide clear disclosures about loan terms, including interest rates, origination fees, and collateral requirements.
3. Misleading consumers by adding false “commercial” and “sole proprietor” language into loan documents to bypass regulatory scrutiny is allegedly fraudulent.

Bankers Healthcare Group Contract: New York Courts Uphold Applicability of Local Civil Practice Laws

Short Summary: 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:

1. Freedom to contract is a significant public policy in New York, and courts generally enforce choice-of-law clauses.
2. Contractual choice-of-law provisions typically apply only to substantive issues unless the parties specify otherwise.
3. 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).

Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC vs. Campbell: Denial of Defendants' Motion to Vacate Default Judgment in Breach of Contract Case

Short Summary: 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:

1. 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.
2. Pro se status or lack of legal sophistication does not constitute "excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b)(1).
3. 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/Main Takeaway: 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)