Subscribe to our newsletter to receive more information and regular updates, click here to subscribe

Home New Cases Synergy Law Trustee Accuses a Lead Generation Company of Knowingly Assisting Debtor in a Mortgage Relief Scam

Synergy Law Trustee Accuses a Lead Generation Company of Knowingly Assisting Debtor in a Mortgage Relief Scam


February 24, 2021, District of Columbia – Debtor Synergy Law, LLC provided and marketed foreclosure rescue services to desperate homeowners in the United States. Debtor was purportedly engaged in a foreclosure rescue services scam. Multiple lawsuits were filed against the Debtor and its principals for serious wrongdoings. According to its schedules, Debtor had received $2.7 million in income and fees from thousands of homeowners who were promised mortgage assistance during the year before it filed bankruptcy. 

Defendant TAS, LLC provided lead services to the Debtor and supposedly played an integral role in the mortgage relief scam perpetrated by Synergy. According to the complaint, the mortgage relief scam falsely promised loan modifications to financially distressed homeowners. In its complaint, Trustee Marc E. Albert alleges that TAS operated deceptive websites that attempted to gather leads from consumers seeking mortgage loan modifications through various mortgage modification companies including, Synergy. According to the Trustee, TAS is liable for the fraudulent acts as it provided substantial assistance to the Debtor. 

The complaint specifically states that Defendant received payments from the Debtor totalling $94,800.00 during the ninety days before the petition date. Besides, the Debtor paid an additional $1,338,001.00 to Defendant within the one year before filing bankruptcy.

The Trustee further alleges that TAS is an insider of Synergy and therefore subject to a longer one-year look-back period. According to the Trustee, the relationship between TAS and the Debtor was much closer than that of a normal third-party vendor. This was evident from many events; a vast majority of the revenue received by TAS came from Synergy or its successors; TAS’ principal operated using email addresses at and in his signature block listed himself as Director of Marketing; some of the invoices paid by TAS were inexplicably being paid by TAS rather than directly by Synergy. Accordingly, the Trustee argues that all of this adds up to an insider relationship and subjects TAS to heightened scrutiny and a longer 1-year look-back period.


Jones & Associates