Professional Practice Sales |
| United States, California |
|
|
Consumer reviews about Professional Practice Sales |
|
jasonpwood
|
Dec 22, 2011
|
RAY IRVING IS A CROOK
As an attorney to more than 4, 000 dentists nationwide for business related matters, I have had the pleasure of working with Mr. Ray Irving on numerous occasions. I have found him not only to be beyond reproach when it comes to ethics, I have also found him to be extremely thorough, even handed and the cream of the crop of his profession. I deal with scores of dental practice brokers nationally, some of which have earned a bad reputation for how they treat potential buyers, but I can say unequivocally that Mr. Irving has earned, and enjoys, a reputation that far surpasses many of his colleagues when it comes to the positive feedback of his clients, expert advisors in this field and his colleagues.
The post that started this thread makes no sense and appeared to be debased of logic. Mr. Irving only represents the Seller and provides information to potential buyers to independently (with the help from the Buyer's advisors) evaluate the practice in question. Everything that you allude to you in your post (albeit in the worst light possible) is the function of a good broker. A broker is to stop tire kickers from eating away at the Seller's valuable time. It is the broker's job to make sure that any potential buyer follows the clock on the transition and if you begin to stall, it is the broker's job to make sure that you either start performing on your end of things or he needs to move on to another buyer. Brokers don't "eat up your deposit", they hold it to make sure that you comply with what you have signed. If you run out of time on your contingencies and don't provide proper notice, then based upon the offer you signed, the Seller gets to keep that money because you wasted everybody's time. I would encourage the original poster to review his "position" of things and to admit fault when it appears to be clear that the fault rests not on Mr. Irving but upon the poster himself.
|
|
WGAS
|
Dec 22, 2011
|
RAY IRVING IS A CROOK
he has the nerve to even say that to your face
No idea what this is all really about, but did you just call this guy an honest crook?
|
|
gary2
|
Feb 10, 2012
|
RAY IRVING IS A CROOK
“I spent two years investigating the purchase of a practice. I investigated private sales and practices listed with numerous firms in Northern California. I found the practices which Ray Irving represented were the most transparent in their presentation and with all of the supporting documents mirroring the offering package. In previous due diligence investigations, I discovered what was represented and what was later documented being different. Further, my Southern California CPA had worked on other client acquisitions made available through Ray and only had positive things to say about his conduct and his work product. As we neared the closing date, Ray learned that Delta Dental was implementing changes to their Premiere Plan which had not yet become pubic information. He immediately phoned me and outlined what he had learned. This allowed me time to investigate this change and to consider the impact it would have upon the practice. It further elevated my trust in Ray. I concluded the purchase and now enjoy a very busy practice. Even though Ray represented the seller, he made sure that I had all of the information I needed to make my decision. There have been no surprises and I am very pleased with my purchase.” DDS
|
|
Ray Irving
|
Mar 23, 2012
|
RAY IRVING IS A CROOK
I am Ray Irving. This complaint was posted by Doctor A. Even though Doctor A has torched me publicly; I see no reason to identify him. Doctor A is correct. We represent dentists who wish to sell their practices. We are not dual agents and we do not represent buyers. During Doctor A’s pursuit of two practices listed with our firm, he was advised in writing to engage advisors to represent his interests. Our “Seller Representation” is clearly stated in the marketing package on each listing. This disclosure pattern continues with the financial package provided, the Offers we draft and the proposed Asset Purchase Agreements we provide which are accompanied by a letter stating that this proposal needs to be reviewed by one’s attorney. And our fees are paid 100% by our clients, the sellers.
In October 2008, a client accepted an Offer to sell his Walnut Creek practice to Doctor A. The Offer outlined specific conditions to be satisfied. The financing condition stated: “Buyer’s obtainment of a satisfactory written proposal regarding the financing required for those proceeds necessary to complete this purchase”. This condition was to be removed within 21-days by Doctor A sending me an email stating that he had an acceptable loan proposal. Doctor A realized two loan proposals within this time frame. The loan he favored did not provide sufficient working capital. Citing this as the reason, Doctor A negotiated a $10, 000 price reduction. Still Doctor A would not remove this condition. He was sent 5-emails outlining that the 21-day financing timeline had expired and that his Offer was in a rescindable state. He was informed that the seller was irritated by his behavior and that there was other interest. Nine days after the financing condition expired and with this condition not removed, our client rescinded the Offer.
In May 2009, Doctor A expressed interest in a practice listed in the Sacramento Foothills. On July 9th, our client accepted an Offer from Doctor A. After performing his due diligence, Doctor A submitted another Offer on August 1st which was $60, 000 less than the earlier Offer. Knowing our client would not accept this Offer, I attempted to find a price point that might work for both parties. In my attempt to find resolution, Doctor A stated in an email: “You pulled the same trick on me last year on the Walnut Creek practice” and rescinded his Offer on August 3rd.
Doctor A’s agenda becomes transparent in his comments regarding “deposits” and our "address”. All deposits are delivered to the title company handling the escrow. The only principals to an escrow are the seller and buyer. When Doctor A was informed by my 5:13 PM email on November 10, 2008 that his Offer on the Walnut Creek practice was rescinded, that same email stated that I would be instructing the title company to refund his deposit. An email was sent to the title company at 5:19 PM (and copied to Doctor A) informing them that the escrow was terminated and instructed them to refund the deposit. Doctor A returned an email acknowledging receipt of the recession notice at 6:58 PM. The deposit refund was mailed to Doctor A on November 12th as the 11th was Veterans Day with the title company closed. Doctor A incurred no costs from the title company in this failed escrow. As it concerns the Sacramento Foothills practice, Doctor A never delivered the required deposit as outlined in the Offer. Concerning our address, my wife and I moved to Bodega Bay in Sonoma County in late 2009. There is no mail delivery in Bodega Bay. PO Boxes are the only way mailed is received. That is why we have a PO Box on our website. Prior to the move, our street address was on the website. Further, we have not had a client visit us in our office since we relocated from San Francisco some 20+ years ago. All meetings are conducted in our clients' offices.
In dealing with Doctor A, it became obvious that the protocols we employ to manage a sale and the manner by which he intended to acquire a practice were not compatible. As such, I was relieved that both purchase discussions came to an end. And both clients were happy to see him go away as they sensed trouble.
As much as I find it distasteful to provide an explanation in a public forum, I cannot allow Doctor A to maliciously defame me and the firm I have worked with for over 36 years. Our files, our two clients and the escrow manager at the title company will support all of these statements. My phone number is 415-899-8580 if you would like to personally discuss this. I would like to thank those parties who have posted comments to Doctor A’s baseless complaint.
|
|
Previous 1 Next |
|
|
