Page 1

E-Mail Interview With Larry J. Laurent -- April 22, 2010

1. It has been almost one year since you filed the lawsuit in Texas on behalf of a DC against their leasing company and ProSolutions in a cross-action. What is the current status of that lawsuit?

Laurent: The lawsuit was filed against Pro Adjuster and Dr. Pisciottano in conjunction with a suit initially brought by Leaf Funding against my client, a chiropractor practicing in Houston. She had purchased a second Pro Adjuster machine through the Pro Adjuster CEO program and had financed through Pro Adjuster Finance Corp. Leaf Funding had purchased her debt from Pro Adjuster and sued my client when she defaulted on her note. My client could not afford to make the payments because Pro Adjuster failed to deliver the services they contracted to provide as a condition of her agreeing to buy the second machine. Without the services provided by Pro Adjuster my client could not afford the lease payments. My client reached a settlement with Leaf under which she agreed to pay Leaf about $100,000. We then proceeded to really press the suit against Pro Adjuster based on her allegations of fraud and breach of contract. Pro Adjuster agreed to settle my client's suit last February just prior to our taking Dr. Pisciottano's scheduled oral deposition.

2. Are you pleased with the outcome of the lawsuit?

Laurent: Absolutely. My client is ecstatic. My client got to walk away without owing any more money. I do, however, regret not having the opportunity to take Dr. Pisciottano's deposition. I would have liked to ask him about the 20 or 30 other doctors who are all in a similar position to my client - who are in default on hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment leasing debts because Pro Adjuster failed to deliver on the promises they made the doctors as an inducement to buy those other adjusting machines through Pro Adjuster's CEO program.

3. A number of DCs in similar situations have been seeking answers as to what their options are if they are not happy with their purchase of the ProSolutions equipment. As one of only a few attorneys who have represented DCs in these actions, what would your advice be?

Laurent: Unfortunately, as individual doctors it is going to be very costly to defend against a lawsuit by the leasing company and to proceed in an action against Pro Adjuster. I believe that the individual doctors are likely to be picked off one-by-one by the leasing companies who hold their notes if they default - like my client. From what I've heard from other lawyers trying to defend the suits brought against the doctors, other courts have not been as willing to permit then to pursue an action against Pro Adjuster, as we were able to do in our Houston lawsuit. If that is the case, the only recourse the doctors would have would be to file their own lawsuit(s) against Pro Adjuster/Pro Solutions in Pennsylvania. If they lose their lease suits and judgments taken against them the dollar amount of the judgments would be a significant measure of the financial damage they have sustained as a result of Pro Adjuster's actions. They would be wise to join forces and proceed together as a group sharing the costs of litigation, but I'm not sure a formal class action would be available to them under PA. law. They also need to be aware of the time restrictions the Pennsylvania statute of limitations might impose on their ability to bring an action against Pro Adjuster/Pro Solutions.

4. There appears to be a growing number of doctors in litigation with Pro-Solutions and its leasing companies. Approximately how many doctors are in litigation, and is this number growing or has it leveled off?

Laurent: I believe there are five or six doctors currently being sued by NCMIC in Iowa and at least one or two other doctors are being sued by other leasing companies in other states. I also believe that one or more doctors may have filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of their Pro Adjuster debt. I represented another doctor in Texas who was sued by General Electric Capital over a Pro Adjuster CEO program debt. In that case GE won a judgment for about $95,000, but we just recently reached a pretty good settlement with GE over that debt. I believe there are quite a few more doctors who financed their acquisition of the CEO program and have gone into default on their debt obligations. I suspect they will likely be targeted for suit by the lending companies in the future.

5.It has been suggested that at least one of the leasing companies utilized for the leases has filed a lawsuit directly against Pro-Solutions. Is this accurate and if so, which leasing companies have filed suit?

Laurent: I believe Leaf Funding suedPro Adjuster/Pro Solutions in Philadelphia. However, I don't believe Leaf actually financed any Pro Adjuster CEO program purchases. It's my understanding that Leaf got stuck in this mess when they were sold a lot of the debt paper that had been financed by Pro Adjuster through Pro Adjuster Finance Corporation, and those notes began going into default. I know that Leaf has not been very happy with the fact that they were not told the whole story when they were sold this bad paper by Pro Adjuster. I heard just the other day that NCMIC is considering taking legal action againstPro Adjuster.