In addition to the shopper payment problems that have persisted for more than a year, this company has legal problems. HS Brands contracted with another MSC several months ago for assistance with some of their shops. The other MSC is now suing HS Brands for breach of that contract (most likely, failure to pay): [dockets.justia.com].

6/26/20 UPDATE - Here is the full complaint:

Exhibit A

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
WOOD COUNTY, OHIO
INTELLISHOP, LLC
2025 Michael Owens Way
Perrysburg, Ohio 43551,
Plaintiff,
v.
HS BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
c/o CT Corporation System
155 Federal Street, Suite 700
Boston, Massachusetts 02110,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
Honorable
COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
DAMAGES, WITH JURY DEMAND
AND PRAECIPE FOR SERVICE
ENDORSED HEREON
ERIK G. CHAPPELL (0066043)
JULIE A. DOUGLAS (0073890)
Lyden, Chappell & Dewhirst, Ltd.
5565 Airport Highway, Suite 101
Toledo, Ohio 43615
Telephone: (419) 867-8900
Telefax: (419) 867-3647
Email: egc@lydenlaw.com
Email: jad@lydenlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NOW COMES Plaintiff, IntelliShop, LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and
through its attorneys, Erik G. Chappell, Esq. and Julie A. Douglas, Esq., of the law firm of
Lyden, Chappell & Dewhirst, Ltd., and for its Complaint for Money Damages against Defendant,
HS Brands International, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”), states and avers as follows:
ELECTRONICALLY-FILED
WOOD COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:29:04 PM
2020CV0218 - Matthew L Reger
CINDY A. HOFNER
CLERK OF COURTS WOOD COUNTY OHIO
- 2 -
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is an Ohio limited liability company, having its principal place of
business at 2025 Michael Owens Way, Perrysburg, Ohio, 43551 in Wood County, Ohio.
2. Defendant is a Massachusetts corporation, having its principal place of
business at 6375 S. Pecos Road, Suite 218, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
3. This Complaint requests damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00,
plus costs, expenses, and attorney fees. Venue is proper in this County in that Plaintiff’s
principal place of business is in Wood County, Ohio. And, issues regarding expenses and costs
related to a now failed merger between the parties, which is the subject of this Complaint, were
negotiated by the parties via phone, email, and in person in Wood County, Ohio.
4. This Court has the requisite personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state
Defendant because it routinely transacted business within the State of Ohio, purposely directed
its activities at Plaintiff in the State of Ohio, and the litigation at issue in this Complaint results
from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to the activities of Defendant in the State of Ohio.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. Both Plaintiff and Defendant are mystery shopping service firms. In or
around 2017, Plaintiff and Defendant began discussions regarding a potential merger agreement
between Plaintiff and Defendant.
6. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that they would share equally in the
expenses and costs related to the merger.
- 3 -
7. Due to Defendant’s financial condition, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed
that Plaintiff would front the expenses and costs related to the merger and that Defendant would
reimburse Plaintiff.
8. Plaintiff spent in excess of $150,000.00 in expenses and costs related to
the merger.
9. During the parties’ discussions regarding the potential merger, Defendant
made certain material representations regarding its business which included, but were not limited
to, ownership in certain international offices, existence of written agreements with the
international offices, profitability, and debt.
10. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s material representations and continued to
expend funds for expenses and costs related to the merger.
11. Plaintiff later discovered that Defendant’s material representations
regarding its ownership in certain international offices, its written agreements with the
international offices, its profitability, and its debt were false. Specifically, Plaintiff discovered
that Defendant did not own certain international offices that it had claimed to own; Defendant
did not have written agreements with any international offices that it had claimed to have;
Defendant was not profitable; and Defendant had an insurmountable amount of debt.
12. Had Plaintiff been aware of Defendant’s material misrepresentations,
Plaintiff would not have expended in excess of $150,000.00 for expenses and costs related to the
merger.
13. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant deteriorated due to
Defendant’s material misrepresentations and Plaintiff rightfully rescinded any agreement to
merge with Defendant due to Defendant’s wrongful and unlawful actions.
- 4 -
14. Defendant has failed and refused to pay its share of the expenses and costs
incurred by Plaintiff related to the now failed merger.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Breach of Contract
15. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 14 as if fully set
forth herein.
16. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a verbal agreement whereby Plaintiff
and Defendant agreed to share equally in the expenses and costs related to the now failed merger.
17. Plaintiff expended in excess of $150,000.00 in expenses and costs related
to the now failed merger.
18. Defendant has refused and failed to reimburse Plaintiff for its share of the
expenses and costs of the now failed merger.
19. Plaintiff has demanded payment from Defendant, which demand has been
refused and the just amount owing to Plaintiff remains unpaid. As such, Defendant is in breach
of the parties’ verbal agreement.
20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of contract,
Plaintiff has been damaged and respectfully requests a judgment against Defendant in an amount
in excess of $25,000.00, together with interest, attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the
litigation of this action.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully set
forth herein.
22. During the parties’ discussions regarding the potential merger, Defendant
made certain material representations regarding its business which included, but were not limited
- 5 -
to, its ownership in certain international offices, the existence of written agreements with the
international offices, its profitability, and its debt.
23. The material representations made by Defendant to Plaintiff were false.
24. At the time that Defendant made the material representations to Plaintiff,
Defendant knew said material representations were false, or were made recklessly without
knowledge of their truth.
25. The material representations made by Defendant to Plaintiff were made as
positive assertions.
26. Defendant made the false material representations to Plaintiff with the
intention that they would be acted upon by Plaintiff and that they would induce Plaintiff to
continue to expend funds for expenses and costs related to the now failed merger.
27. Plaintiff acted in reliance upon the false material representations made by
Defendant and expended in excess of $150,000.00 for expenses and costs related to the now
failed merger, thereby causing Plaintiff to suffer injury.
28. Plaintiff’s reliance upon the false material representations of Defendant
was justifiable, reasonable, and foreseeable.
29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s fraudulent
misrepresentations to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount in excess of
$25,000.00, plus interest, costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in
its favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs,
expenses, and attorney fees and for such other further and additional relief as may be fair and just
under the circumstances.
- 6 -
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Negligent Misrepresentation (Pled in the Alternative)
30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully set
forth herein.
31. At all pertinent times during this action and during the discussion
regarding the potential merger of the companies of which Defendant had a pecuniary interest,
Defendant supplied false information to Plaintiff regarding its business which included, but was
not limited to, its ownership in certain international offices, the existence of written agreements
between Defendant and international offices, its profitability, and its debt. Defendant failed to
exercise reasonable care or competence when supplying this information to Plaintiff.
32. Defendant had a duty to advise Plaintiff that it did not have any ownership
in certain international offices, that it did not have written agreements with any international
offices, that it was not profitable, and that it had an insurmountable amount of debt.
33. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendant’s misrepresentations was justifiable,
reasonable, and foreseeable.
34. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations and continued to expend
funds for expenses and costs related to the now failed merger, thereby causing Plaintiff to suffer
injury.
35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misrepresentations to
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest,
costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in
its favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs,
- 7 -
expenses, and attorney fees and for such other further and additional relief as may be fair and just
under the circumstances.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Innocent Misrepresentation (Pled in the Alternative)
36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 35 as though fully set
forth herein.
37. Defendant made representations of fact to Plaintiff that it owned certain
international offices, that it had written agreements with international offices, that it was
profitable, and that it had a manageable amount of debt.
38. The representations made by Defendant to Plaintiff were false.
39. Defendant was aware of the false nature of the representations yet allowed
Plaintiff to continue to expend funds for expenses and costs related to the now failed merger.
40. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon the representations of Defendant to its
damage.
41. The loss sustained by Plaintiff has inured to the benefit of Defendant.
42. Absent the representations made by Defendant, Plaintiff would not have
continued to expend funds for expenses and costs related to the now failed merger.
43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misrepresentations to
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest,
costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in
its favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs,
expenses, and attorney fees and for such other further and additional relief as may be fair and just
under the circumstances.
- 8 -
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unjust Enrichment (Pled in the Alternative)
44. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set
forth herein.
45. Plaintiff conferred a benefit on Defendant by expending in excess of
$150,000.00 for expenses and costs related to the now failed merger.
46. Defendant has been unjustly enriched by Plaintiff’s expending in excess of
$150,000.00 for expenses and costs related to the now failed merger to Plaintiff’s detriment.
47. Plaintiff is entitled to payment from Defendant in an amount in excess of
$25,000.00 by which it has unjustly enriched Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in
its favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs,
expenses, and attorney fees and for such other further and additional relief as may be fair and just
under the circumstances.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Promissory Estoppel
48. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 47 as if fully set forth
herein.
49. Defendant made clear and unambiguous promises that it would share
equally in the expenses and costs related to the now failed merger.
50. Plaintiff reasonably and materially relied upon Defendant’s promises.
51. Plaintiff’s reasonable and material reliance on the promises made to it by
Defendant was foreseeable by Defendant.
- 9 -
52. Plaintiff has been substantively and materially injured by its reasonable,
material, and foreseeable reliance upon Defendant’s promises.
53. As a direct result of Defendant’s promissory estoppel, Plaintiff has been
damaged in an amount in excess of $25,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in
its favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs, and
attorney fees and for such further and additional relief as may be fair and just under the
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Erik G. Chappell
Erik G. Chappell (0066043)
Lyden, Chappell & Dewhirst, Ltd.
5565 Airport Highway, Suite 101
Toledo, Ohio 43615
Telephone: (419) 867-8900
Telefax: (419) 867-3647
Email: egc@lydenlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.
/s/ Erik G. Chappell
Erik G. Chappell, Attorney for Plaintiff
- 10 -
PRAECIPE FOR SERVICE
To the Clerk of Court:
Please cause summons and a copy of the Complaint to be served upon Defendant,
HS Brands International, Inc., at the above referenced address, via certified mail, return receipt
requested.
/s/ Erik G. Chappell
Erik G. Chappell, Attorney for Plaintiff
04/15/2020
Date

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2020 08:20PM by MSF.

Hmm maybe a company I will avoid for a while. The payment terms are longer than I would like anyway - I think going forward I would be worrying about whether we would be reimbursed/paid at all.

@MSF wrote:

(most likely, failure to pay)

While you may or may not be correct that is pure speculation on your part and there is no basis for "most likely"

@bgriffin wrote:

@MSF wrote:

(most likely, failure to pay)

While you may or may not be correct that is pure speculation on your part and there is no basis for "most likely"

I believe that it is NOT about failure to pay for scheduling or completing mystery shops.

Bunch of armchair quarterbacks here with zero insider info as usual.

Companies have disputes all the time and sometimes end up in litigation. It is very common. It’s the cost of doing business.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2020 05:53PM by audrialyn30.

Did Service Sleuth and Measure Consumer Perspectives get bought out by or merge with HS Brands International? I am cleaning up my database and found cryptic cross-reference notes. (Can't read my own notes!)
Edited for spelling

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2020 06:11PM by Dandydew.

It's not. As stated in the post, another MSC that HS Brands contracted to do work for them is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. By the way, you are leading the pack of armchair quarterbacks by stating what YOU BELIEVE.

@SoCalMama wrote:

I believe that it is NOT about failure to pay for scheduling or completing mystery shops.

Bunch of armchair quarterbacks here with zero insider info as usual.

MSF, if you know who the plaintiff is perhaps you also know what court might have a public record concerning this. I did a search on HS Brands law suit, several ways. If I had the name of the plaintiff, or the name of the court of jurisdiction, I might have succeeded.

@walesmaven, I included a link in the post with information on the lawsuit.

Everything you're looking for and more may be found using the link provided with the original message. Defendant, court of jurisdiction, judge, etc.

@walesmaven wrote:

MSF, if you know who the plaintiff is perhaps you also know what court might have a public record concerning this. I did a search on HS Brands law suit, several ways. If I had the name of the plaintiff, or the name of the court of jurisdiction, I might have succeeded.

@MSF wrote:

It's not. As stated in the post, another MSC that HS Brands contracted to do work for them is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. By the way, you are leading the pack of armchair quarterbacks by stating what YOU BELIEVE.

@SoCalMama wrote:

I believe that it is NOT about failure to pay for scheduling or completing mystery shops.

Bunch of armchair quarterbacks here with zero insider info as usual.

I can’t see anything more than the litigants, but based on what I know, I am aware of why there could be litigation. It has nothing to do with shoppers payments or payments for scheduling.

Correct. As I posted, another MSC is suing HSB--not shoppers, not the scheduling company.

@SoCalMama wrote:

I can’t see anything more than the litigants, but based on what I know, I am aware of why there could be litigation. It has nothing to do with shoppers payments or payments for scheduling.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2020 07:34PM by MSF.

My error. I checked the site and tried to access the complaint document. However, there is a fee for access to documents. The plaintiff appears to be Intellishop.

Does anyone recall either working directly with the other to serve a client ? If not, the suit may not involve performed shops but, rather, encroachment, unfair practices etc. etc.

@walesmaven, to answer your question, yes. HSB hired the plaintiff to take on work from at least one of their biggest clients.

@walesmaven wrote:

My error. I checked the site and tried to access the complaint document. However, there is a fee for access to documents. The plaintiff appears to be Intellishop.

Does anyone recall either working directly with the other to serve a client ? If not, the suit may not involve performed shops but, rather, encroachment, unfair practices etc. etc.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2020 08:38PM by MSF.

Wales inquires--Does anyone recall either working directly with the other to serve a client ? If not, the suit may not involve performed shops but, rather, encroachment, unfair practices etc. etc.

Bob's reply--Last year, I completed seven shops for a single SS client through Intelli and was paid by the latter; both logos were on the assignment report. Beginning in Jan. of this year, of the ones I completed, Intelli was not involved. In that for the seven last year I was not paid through SS, this appears to be more than merely scheduling.

I was able to access the complaint via Law360. It involves a failed merger between the two MSCs around 2017. The lawsuit only seeks $25,000 plus attorney and court costs as damages. The most recent docket entry shows the two sides are discussing a possible resolution.

Key points from Intellishop's complaint -- and keep in mind this is just one side of the story. (It has been answered, and almost surely denied, but I can't access the answer from HS.)

9. During the parties’ discussions regarding the potential merger, Defendant
made certain material representations regarding its business which included, but were not limited
to, ownership in certain international offices, existence of written agreements with the
international offices, profitability, and debt.
10. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s material representations and continued to
expend funds for expenses and costs related to the merger.
11. Plaintiff later discovered that Defendant’s material representations
regarding its ownership in certain international offices, its written agreements with the
international offices, its profitability, and its debt were false. Specifically, Plaintiff discovered
that Defendant did not own certain international offices that it had claimed to own; Defendant
did not have written agreements with any international offices that it had claimed to have;
Defendant was not profitable; and Defendant had an insurmountable amount of debt.
12. Had Plaintiff been aware of Defendant’s material misrepresentations,
Plaintiff would not have expended in excess of $150,000.00 for expenses and costs related to the
merger.
13. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant deteriorated due to
Defendant’s material misrepresentations and Plaintiff rightfully rescinded any agreement to
merge with Defendant due to Defendant’s wrongful and unlawful actions.

32. Defendant had a duty to advise Plaintiff that it did not have any ownership
in certain international offices, that it did not have written agreements with any international
offices, that it was not profitable, and that it had an insurmountable amount of debt.

Two points in NinS' posting jump out at me: If Intelli spent in excess of $150,000.00 in expenses, why only sue for $25,000.00? Secondly: If the matter extended back to 2017, why enter into an association in 2019 to both schedule work and pay for the completion thereof for a client of SS?

This is what stood out to me, in the very last line of Point #11:
Defendant was not profitable; and Defendant had an insurmountable amount of debt.

That answers a lot of questions as to why HS Brands can't seem to pay its shoppers quicker than it does.

I’m reminded of this quote from Dr Phil:

No matter how flat you make a pancake, it’s still got two sides.

So there you have it. This explains SO much. Of course the signs have been there all along for anyone who did not choose to ignore them. I'll stick with the plaintiff's version. I'm sure they came to their conclusions after having a team of skilled accountants, attorneys, and bankers thoroughly analyze HSB. Anyone who continues to defend HS Brands and CEO Tom Mills is fooling themself. Engage with HSB in the future at your own risk, but please stop asserting that it is a stable company and implying that it will always be able to pay its shoppers.

@guysmom wrote:

This is what stood out to me, in the very last line of Point #11:
Defendant was not profitable; and Defendant had an insurmountable amount of debt.

That answers a lot of questions as to why HS Brands can't seem to pay its shoppers quicker than it does.

MSF cautions-- Engage with HSB in the future at your own risk,

Bob's thought--engage with any MSC currently or in the future at your own risk.

MSF continues--stop asserting that it is a stable company

Bob counters--Until SS is proven unstable, they have my vote.

MSF concludes-- implying that it will always be able to pay its shoppers.

Bob disagrees--As it applies to any MSC, I have not read such an implication.

It is the prerogative of all shoppers to discontinue their association with SS. As for me, I have bagged approx. 230 jobs over a 15 year period and have always been paid. I will continue to leave my account active and accept such work as where the work:reward ratio is acceptable.

Things change, @shopperbob, even the name of this MSC that you continue to refer to as Service Sleuth.

MSF correctly states--Things change, @shopperbob,

Bob's comment--Unfortunately, that is true, but, not always for the good. Specifically, the current trend toward MSC name changes, in my opinion, usually create confusion; I am not against a positive change.

@shopperbob, my point was that you and others keep referring to this MSC's past. You keep using its former name. You keep stating that the MSC has paid you in the past. You either fail to see, or to acknowledge, the MSC that sits before you today. It is not in good shape. The management has not been considerate of shoppers.

This lawsuit dates back to 2017. HS Brands paid me for every shop I performed during the failed merger talks. HS Brands paid me for every shop I performed after the merger talks ended. HS paid me on time per the terms of our agreement for every pre-COVID 2020 shop I performed for them -- even as they were shedding staff during the economic crisis. Reasonable people could certainly justify still shopping for HS just as they could reasonably justify avoiding shopping for HS. Some will only do shops with small outlays, others may be willing to do shops with high reimbursements. Actual data point are helpful. Arguments about how other people should run their business are not.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2020 09:00PM by NinS.

@NinS, while you received your payments on time, you know that others were paid late, not in accordance with the MSC's payment terms. You also know that this has been going on for months, and that shoppers have had to reach out to Lorri Kern and others due to the lack of communication and responsiveness from the MSC. I don't think whether or not an MSC should pay shoppers on time and communicate with them promptly when problems arise is debatable at all.

Since HSB is not a public company, we have not seen their financials (which may very well be part of the court documents). Between the history of late payments and unresponsiveness, and the claims made in this lawsuit (filed 5/21/20, btw), there are significant indicators that HS Brands is not the MSC that some people try to make it out to be. That said, yes, everyone can make their own decisions in relation to HS Brands going forward. Some may want to front a few hundred or a few thousand dollars of their own money on HS Brands shops without concern for the risk. Others will resolutely say, "No thank you."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2020 09:25PM by MSF.

@MSF wrote:

In addition to the shopper payment problems that have persisted for more than a year, this company has legal problems. HS Brands contracted with another MSC several months ago for assistance with some of their shops. The other MSC is now suing HS Brands for breach of that contract (most likely, failure to pay): [dockets.justia.com].

You couldn't be more wrong, actually.

Things are going fine at HSB. They are not short on cash. In fact, I heard from Lisa today that they have paid all shoppers through the end of May, and paypal should hit everyone’s accounts by Monday. Yes, they were late on payments for a year or so, but as someone who’s been close with them for 20+ years, I can tell you it was for many reasons and not for being in financial trouble.

If you’ve noticed by the amount of shops we schedule for them, they have grown incredibly. They have more than tripled in size since 2015. They bought MCP in 2018 and Mystery Review in the Netherlands in 2019 plus I think some other companies in Thailand and Australia. Companies with no money don’t buy other companies.

I know they were working with IntelliShop in 2019 and the reason you saw IntelliShop doing some of their shops was because HSB took over other things for IntelliShop.

Tom Mills recently brought on some high profile entrepreneur friends of his to try to really grow the HSBrands Internationally. Not sure everyone knows this in the US, but they have 10 other offices around the world.

From my perspective it’s been better, HSB started to hire some superstar new employees. Things are so much better with the new people, but as some of you say we don’t know everything that goes on behind the curtain and I think all this expansion and growth caused a cash crunch for a while. But for 25 years they have been paying shoppers and paying me without fail. I know they are actively trying to acquire more MSC’s, so I wouldn’t worry at all about getting paid from them.

As for the lawsuit, I called Tom and he laughed saying “just wait a few months, it will look outwardly much different than it does now. Some people just like to hide behind lawyers.”

@Lorri Kern KSS, if that is true, that would be great. Their history of late payments, their lack of communication, and this lawsuit paint a bad picture of HS Brands though. Time will tell. I probably would be hesitant to accept any of their shops unless the narrative changed. If their cash flow is fine, there is no excuse for them to repeatedly pay shoppers late.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2020 12:18AM by MSF.

@MSF wrote:

@Lorri Kern KSS, if that is true, that would be great. Their history of late payments, their lack of communication, and this lawsuit paint a bad picture of HS Brands though. Time will tell. I probably would be hesitant to accept any of their shops unless the narrative changed. If their cash flow is fine, there is no excuse for them to repeatedly pay shoppers late.

After all that you've posted, it's not likely you'd be chosen anyway.

More for me. I'm the dummy who put-up $30,000 to do a shop for them. Obviously, I got paid well. I'm sure that they did too. Win-win.

Gotta love your canned responses.

There are a ton of better places to put 30K that have a much better risk/reward proposition.

@SoCalMama wrote:

@Eric in Tampa wrote:

Thanks, but I'm noping out on this. Nope, nope, nope!

Unlikely you'd be chosen anyway.