Home > News and Blog

March 06, 2025
by David Goodale

How can you get off the match list for credit card processing?

(Slightly edited from video transcript for greater readability)

David Goodale:

Hello, David here with another episode of the podcast. Today we're going to be talking about the MATCH list, which is a terrible thing. Hopefully, you're not watching this because you're on it now. It's human to want some recognition for your hard work. You might want to be nominated for a business award. You might want to be included on a list of prestigious people. Well, MATCH is not that list MATCH is a blacklist of people who processors do not want to work with. It's a big problem if you're on the MATCH list because it's notoriously hard, if not impossible to get off it. MATCH is not something that I have a lot of experience with. The people I've invited on the podcast today too, I'm speaking with Bryce Van De Moere and Jeremy Stock from Global Legal law firm. Global Legal has a tremendous amount of experience as lawyers, particularly working in the payments industry. They do a lot of work around MATCH. I'm going to pick their brains to learn what you can do if you find yourself on the MATCH list. Guys, thanks for joining today.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Thanks for having us. Yeah, thank you very much, David. It's good to be here.

David Goodale:

Perfect. Let's just jump in. What is MATCH? It doesn't sound bad. What is it?

Bryce Van De Moere:

Well, MATCH is an acronym for Member Assist to Control High Risk. Just so nobody gets confused in the context of that acronym, A member is a bank. That's it. Since banks have these contracts with card brands, Visa, MasterCard, whatever, to get the privilege of offering their cards to their customers or prospect sales using those cards, they have to agree to abide by these rules. There are like 14 different possible violations. It's in the car burn rule. If they get the sense the banks are ultimately going to be held responsible for anything that happens, if they even get a whiff of the fact that you may be doing something wrong, or even if they just don't understand you, they're going to terminate your, your merchant account, terminate your processing and put you on this list, which doesn't allow you to take credit cards for the next five years. That at which time you'll come off automatically, but by then the damage is done.

David Goodale:

Five years without preprocessing is like five minutes without oxygen to a human. Like, you can't live with that. Yeah.

Bryce Van De Moere:

It's an awful experience and I see how awful it can be. I get new examples daily.

David Goodale:

I believe it. I want to say like my intent with this podcast episode, it's not obviously to help the bad actors who run bad businesses with poor service. It's to help the good guys who are unfairly caught on MATCH. You guys know, there are two sides to every story. I'll even tell you a quick one that I ran into. There was one, there's only one time ever in all of my experience where a merchant called me and they straight up owned, hey, I was on MATCH because we weren't doing refunds quickly enough. It was my fault. I'm like, wow. Like, at least you're owning it. I think a lot of the time people are on MATCH for a reason. I had another client; he's one of the nicest guys ever. I know this guy personally because he's a client and he got put on MATCH by one of the big processors. I know the details. It was like insanely egregiously unfair, like wild. He'd only processed for like a week and he got a chargeback within the week and they terminated him, and put him on MATCH. It was crazy. I guess this is a very long-winded way of getting to my question. How often do good clean merchants get put on MATCH?

Bryce Van De Moere:

I'm sorry. How'd you characterize the merchant?

David Goodale:

Do, good clean, well-intentioned merchants get put on MATCH?

Bryce Van De Moere:

Oh, that's like the majority of the placements, to be honest with you. All the time David. It's just, and I'm going to kind of clarify a comment you made earlier. The MATCH list is not a list of merchants that processors want to work with. They're just so afraid of getting on MasterCard's bad side that they're doing it out of necessity. They're so big that they know that they can take this step with you and chances are you're not going to be able to fight it. They're okay. They think they're okay because they've met what MasterCard calls a reasonable belief standard, which is like, what does that mean? It's subjective, they made this comment on another podcast, but they have thousands of merchants, processing with them what's one. They're going to always err on the side of cutting, of shutting you down as opposed to not. If the card brands were involved, everybody would like to process. Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody wants to be flexible. The card brands create an environment where it's just not possible. To answer your question again good, bad, it doesn't seem to matter. Everybody's at risk.

Jeremy Stock:

Can I give an example of this? David, do you mind? Because it's, a great question. Many of them, as Bryce was just explaining, are innocent actors. Just merchants trying to make a living. I'll give you one case example, and Bryce can go into detail on this identity theft. We have clients all the time who call us because they find out they're on the MATCH list. They've been prohibited from processing for the next five years because they were victims of identity theft. Wow. They're victimized not only once because of their identity being stolen and used, but then because of that victimization, they're also victimized a second time thrown on this prohibition list. I want Bryce to explain what sometimes the responses we get from these processors or banks where they're not always willing to help out.

Bryce Van De Moere:

your data has been stolen and they've used your data to apply for a merchant account. They know that the merchant is the, is the victim here. They know what happened. All that personal data is now tainted and it ends up on the MATCH list. Other people who don't under the auspices of somebody else could try that data again. We all know, is it the chances of that happening more than once are slim to none.

Jeremy Stock:

No, that's all right.

Bryce Van De Moere:

No, I'm sorry. I got to back underneath theft so they know what's happening, but they won't help you at all even though we're like these people were victimized. They already had their data stolen. Now you're going to put 'em out of business. Where's the logic in that? Again, it's the environment that the credit cards have created and they know that, but they just don't care. Because they don't have to, I guess.

David Goodale:

I've been staring at this sentence on my monitor. I want to ask this question. You're not going to like it because there's no good answer. I have a feeling the question is, where are the checks and balances to have some level of fairness?

Bryce Van De Moere:

There are none. Get a lawyer. Because even if they don't understand something it just doesn't make sense to them. It can't they're just going to err on the side of caution for them because they're only interested in protecting themselves. It's, there's just, there's no way around it. Wow. They know.

Jeremy Stock:

David, oh, I'm so sorry. If I can add to that just a little bit. Because Bryce is correct. There are no checks and balances. Again, not all processors are bad. Not all acquiring banks are bad, but they do have a vested interest in their relationship with Visa and MasterCard under the card brand rules. That's what they care about. They want to keep their relationship with the banks.

Bryce Van De Moere:

It's their bread and butter.

Jeremy Stock:

It's their bread and butter. As Bryce was pointing out, what ends up happening is they do this. I think ultimately, they know 99% of merchants cannot afford to protect themselves, cannot afford even really to do MATCH list removal services as affordable, as global legal is in those services, it's still expensive. Most merchants, as probably can't afford that. These banks, these processors, unfortunately, can do this really without many repercussions.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Yeah, even hiring a lawyer is not a guarantee. Because I see lawyers in our line of work all the time. They're like, oh, I do business litigation. I know how hard can payment processing be. Very hard. *Laugh* Like they have they have no idea what they walked into. Here we don't want to sue. We don't want to charge our clients to spend the money to sue. We always try to get them to respond to us. It just explains what happened. They won't even give you notice.

David Goodale:

That was my next question. Because a lot of times merchants contact me and they get declined because they're on MATCH and they're like what's MATCH? Then they come back and they say, who put me there? Is it even possible for them to find out who put them on there?

Bryce Van De Moere:

Well, we found a back channel, and you can share should share this with all of, your viewers, that if you are told you are on MATCH, and yeah, you're not going to get any information about it at all. They're not even going to tell you. They're just going to wait there and you know for you to find out. Email matchbusinessowner@mastercard.com, it has to be the merchant. It cannot be anybody else but the merchant or they will not respond. If you, if you write them, give them some informal general information about your business. Say, hey, I've been, I've been told I'm a MATCH. Can you verify? Within 24 hours they will tell you the bank, they will tell you the date of the placement and they will tell you the violation. That's something that we have all of our clients do. Like right away, it's just a quick and easy way. Because before, we knew, this email existed, we would just write letters like till we were blue in the face, it would take weeks. Yeah.

Jeremy Stock:

Sometimes weeks if not months to find out.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Well, you got to remember too, you got to realize that these guys have no incentive to talk to us at all. The only incentive, I'm kind of proud because I think we've got quite a reputation. We will see these guys and we often deal with the same players, on a pretty regular basis. We're known. I think that's the only reason that they even responded to it all because they know us. They know what we're capable of. A regular merchant just had their revenue cut off. They're not going to make a move. Why, would a bank that's again trying to protect itself respond to a merchant when they don't have to because the relationship is over? They're holding the reserve funds until whatever chargeback period applies that allows them to hold that money.

Bryce Van De Moere:

But why would they bid against themselves? There, there are some cases where we're just like, the amicable route doesn't work, so we're going to have to file a lawsuit because, the other thing, and I'll let's close with this. The hardest part of our cases, it's just getting under-respond. Like our clients call us up or email us and say, hey, can I get a status? I tell 'em every time, this is just the way it is, they are slow about everything. They're slow and obstructive. It's hard to believe that it's not intentional, but there's just no incentive. They are certain that they've done the right thing. They don't want to hear.

David Goodale:

Don't hear otherwise. this is interesting in a terrifying way because I can see that this could, I don't want to be overly dramatic. There are things that car accidents are worth, health issues are worth worse. You could ruin some, you could effectively ruin somebody's life over this. You could shut down their business. They can't make their mortgage payment. They can't open another business like this. Is, this can be serious.

Jeremy Stock:

I want you to know David, that's not an exaggeration at all. I talk to people every single day who are either losing their business or they're saying, Hey Jeremy, we're two or three weeks away from going out of business because as Bryce was pointing out, they've been terminated. If they're calling us, they've likely already been terminated. Which means the money's not coming in and connected to all this. Many merchants have funds that are being held in association with this MATCH list placement, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. They can't pay their employees, they can't fulfill, their orders. It just creates a massive, massive domino effect.

Bryce Van De Moere:

I think we touched on this earlier, but after COVID, nobody takes checks anymore. Nobody takes cash anymore. It is an online market. It is credit cards. That's just the way it is now. I almost think that, we're here in the United States that should be like a caveat of the constitution. That like the right to take credit cards is like part of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because you're not getting anywhere as a business unless you can take credit cards. That's just, that's just the fact of life. They cut 'em off.

David Goodale:

It's a form of debunking.

Bryce Van De Moere:

They cut 'em all off. MasterCard, Visa, American Express, you got nowhere. Discover. I haven't seen too many discoveries, but that's it. You have nowhere else to go. I mean it's a bad situation.

David Goodale:

This doesn't sound positive. Like, okay, let's say it happens and someone realizes that like, this is serious, it's bad. I'm going to reach out to you guys. Another listen, I'm just bringing hard questions today because this is a hard topic. Somebody's like, look, I've got to get this fixed. What is the realistic timeframe for resolving this?

Jeremy Stock:

I'll start with Bryce. Because I have this conversation every day David, with clients. That's the number two question. The number one question typically is how much is it going to cost. The second question is, how long is this going to take? Generally speaking, we tell our clients three to five months for resolution on these. The reality is these can stretch out much longer. We've seen these go 6, 7, 8, 9 months over a year. It's not common that they're going that long. These can stretch out. Now, on the other hand, from time to time, as rare as it is, we do have some MATCH situations that we've been able to resolve within a month and a half. Okay? It can happen. It's just that we don't like our clients to expect that because it is not the norm.

Bryce Van De Moere:

It does depend on the violation. Like I said, there are 14, but really only six or seven show up with any irregularity. Excessive chargebacks. If you want to stay off the MATCH list, you have to police your credit cards. If in one month, your MasterCard chargebacks exceed 1% of your total chargebacks for the month and $5,000 MATCHed, it's real. Those are difficult because the numbers are the numbers. All you can do is try to, mess with their calculations and or dispute their calculations. The number of identity thefts that we discussed, it's your data has been compromised. your social security has been compromised. What do you do with that? The ones that we can work with are like the frauds and fraud is just high chargebacks, non-MasterCard. That the excessive chargeback rule doesn't apply What? Violation standards. Yep. Fraud laundering.

Jeremy Stock:

Transaction launder. It's a Big one.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Yeah, because of some of these violation standards. What does that mean? It can, it can mean anything. I have a question about your preamble. As your merchant got MATCHed for not refunding promptly where was the violation? There isn't a need to refund faster violation in the card brand. I have to wonder when you do go to fight these and or when you want, want to inquire as a merchant, you got to make sure that you let it's kind of like dealing with the cops, they're like, know how fast you were going. It's just like, you tell me what I did, and why don't ever go in assuming that you know exactly what happened with them on that side?

David Goodale:

That's one of the things I can think of, to add something to this discussion from working on the processing side. Let me tell you, merchants breach chargeback thresholds all the time. Now. It doesn't happen all the time. Like a good merchant. I had a merchant who I remember what they did. They just were ducks in a shooting gallery that had never had chargeback problems before. Some fraudsters on some forums realized they weren't scrubbing fraud as they should have. They, and they got hit. They spiked and breached and stuff. Then again, I've had other merchants who are problem merchants, to be honest, and they run chargebacks for too long. I have never had a merchant terminated or put on MATCH, ever. My question for you is, well maybe it's more of a statement. How is it fair that one person could be terminated for a couple of chargebacks in breaching and other guys go way over?

Bryce Van De Moere:

Luck of the draw man? Well, yeah, it really, is so arbitrary because, different banks have different risk departments. It comes down to, this is probably not, not a great example, but, we had a couple of cases with some sex dolls. Okay. All shapes and sizes. I'm not endorsing that, but I'm not judging it, but somebody would say that doll looks like a kid and so we're going to shut you down completely. Then they'll send me the photo. It doesn't look like a kid. It doesn't look like a kid at all. To the person making the decision, it is completely subjective. Like, I got to find out.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Who it was that made this determination? You're never going to; you're never going to find that out. I'm still waiting for somebody to come with enough reserves to file a lawsuit and make them explain why they think. What if the person's just a total prude and doesn't like sex dolls at all, doesn't even like the concept? They just have some vendetta. I understand that's kind of like going to the extreme of the example, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

David Goodale:

There's this discretionary unreasonably too much discretion to it. One of the things I'm not understanding, so I had originally written the question, is the best route to work with a processor who put you on it? Or with MasterCard directly? In your example, who are you going after to fix this?

Bryce Van De Moere:

First, we started with the processor, but the bank had to order the hit. I guess I'll put it that way, like *inaudible*. The bank is the only one that contracts with the card brands. The card brands allow the bank to delegate some of its duties to third parties. The bank is still responsible for everything that happens. We'll start directly with PayPal, but if they start jerking us around, then we just jump to Wells Fargo or PNC. Now PNC and Dutch bank for Stripe. You go right to them and you just try to try to shake the tree a little bit. Trying to contact MasterCard other than emailing that email that I said before is a total waste of time. They got sick of me writing them for a while, but they will tell you we're just a custodian of the list. We don't have any information, about what is going on there. If the bank submits a recommendation that you be removed, then we will remove you no questions asked. The bank is the one who has to make the call.

Jeremy Stock:

That email that Bryce referred to earlier. They will say in that email when they respond to the merchant, they will tell you here's your information. Leave us alone, we can't help you. You have to go to the entity that placed you on the list. That's the only entity that can take you off the list.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Yeah. But that email is the only way they'll help at all. Yeah. It's just giving you an idea. They won't give you the specifics because they don't know. They're just a custodian.

Jeremy Stock:

David, can I touch on something you had asked a little bit earlier, you mentioned it because you said you see merchants all the time going above 1% and in essence having excessive chargebacks, and yet you haven't MATCHed anybody. Mm-Hmm *affirmative*. It goes back to what we talked about in our previous podcast, by the way, I'm going to say a quick little plug. We interviewed David on our podcast, the **Payments Experts Podcast**. Please go check that out. It was a great conversation. Give him the website, talking about surcharge and dual pricing, et cetera, bringing on merchants. That's over at globallegallawfirm.com. David, it comes down to, I think what you do for your clients, your merchants, is that you care. You want a relationship with your merchants. You want a relationship with your clients, your hands. That's why you call them and say, hey, we need to talk. What's going on with your chargebacks? As opposed to some of these larger entities. I'll just pick on data. They don't ask any questions. They're just going to throw you on the list. They won't even tell you they did. You'll find out two months later. Or, when...

Bryce Van De Moere:

The account gets terminated. Yeah. They're doing so much volume; they don't have to care about you at all.

David Goodale:

Can I ask one question? By the way, that was super helpful, guys. I appreciate that. One of the things I'm trying to play devil's advocate for is the processor. You said that they have to care about the relationship with the card networks. That is fair. What is the risk to the processor to knowingly onboard a merchant that's on MATCH?

Bryce Van De Moere:

First off, if MasterCard gets the sense that, well, hey, if you don't MATCH somebody for a violation and then down the road they violate again, you're going to get nailed by MasterCard for not getting rid of 'em the first time. There is that can you ask the question again?

David Goodale:

Yeah. I want to know what the risk to the processor is if they onboard a merchant on MATCH.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Fines will be assessed by MasterCard to the bank. The bank will take the money from the processor. The processor is supposed to get the money from the merchant, if the merchant doesn't have the money processor gets stuck. That's really about it. They just have to protect their relationship with the bank. Is that being what the processor does going to affect what the bank's going to do, which is going to affect the bank's relationship with the guard brands? When you have that kind of hammer hanging over your head, you're going to err on the side of caution and pull the trigger and terminate as opposed.

David Goodale:

To be ahead of risk. They did tell me once that, and I didn't remember it until you said that it was something like if there were previous uncollected fines from this merchant, but you onboarded them, good news, those fines are now yours.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Yeah. I have yet to understand or get an explanation as to how these fines are assessed. They can be anywhere from like $25,000 to $500,000. There'll be no explanation. I'm going to raise this one too. When you are told you're getting fined by your bank or your processor, ask them for the BRAM.

David Goodale:

Business risk and mitigation or something. Yeah.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Ask them to show you the letter. Ask them to confirm that you are the one. I had one where it turned out that the bank had broken the rules but was hanging it on the merchant. Right. Try and try to get money from the merchant. On top of that, the bank already has access to your bank account. I'm going to make another crazy little statement here of recommendation. If you get termed for a MATCH, the first thing you need to do is tell your bank, don't let this bank take any money from me. Like just prohibit them. You can settle up with them later, but they're going to do what's best for them. If you don't do that right away, you're going to turn around and they're going to just wipe out your account. They're going to take all the money they think they're due, and then good luck getting it back. Even if you hire a lawyer and that lawyer goes to bat for you, and you have a successful outcome, it's still going to be a nightmare getting the money. It, once the money's gone, it's really hard to get it back, but at least while you have it, you have leverage.

Jeremy Stock:

Well, and if I can add onto that as well, there's that old saying. 90% of the law is possession. Mm-Hmm *affirmative*. Right? That's very true in the sense that Bryce, you said they're going to take all the money that's theirs.

Bryce Van De Moere:

They think it's theirs.

Jeremy Stock:

They think it's theirs. Furthermore, they're going to take all the money that might be at risk because of potential, not actual chargebacks, but maybe some chargebacks might come. We're going to hold all that money too. it's an incredible problem.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Well yeah, and your average ticket price, like your average sale, let's say it's like 50 bucks. We've seen processors holding reserve count, reserve funds as high as a million dollars. and you're like, why do you need this much money when the average ticket price is $50? There's a visa rule that says that the amount of the reserve can, has to be directly related to the risk involved.

Jeremy Stock:

Reasonably related to...

Bryce Van De Moere:

The reason is the amount of risk involved. Nobody ever falls under that rule.

David Goodale:

I didn't know that was a rule. That sounds like a good rule to be aware of. Yeah.

Bryce Van De Moere:

But be a rule six, and I throw it at people all the time.

David Goodale:

I will tell you as a small business owner there are times when it's like I just don't know if I need to talk to a lawyer for this. If there's one thing this conversation has convinced me of, take MATCH seriously, this is one time that you probably promptly should talk to a lawyer. I'm going to ask you guys a question. You're not on the hot seat for it, but a lot of small and mid-sized business owners won't know. Are you able to give people any idea of what the rough cost might be to fight this out? Like, I know it's going to be a big range because it could go short, it could go long, but can you give people any idea what they're looking at?

Jeremy Stock:

Yeah, absolutely. It's, funny David, that you asked that. It's a great question, and I'm asked this almost every day. The good news is we're able to give a pretty solid approximation because we do so much of this work. We've been doing this for years now, so we've kind of nailed down the price point.

Bryce Van De Moere:

We also, have contacts with the people who will regularly speak. It's like I'm talking to somebody from American Express who goes to me regularly. She's very responsive and I know that I'm lucky. I know that I'm lucky she even talks to me. Yeah. merchants aren't going to be able to do that.

Jeremy Stock:

Yeah. Bryce has a call in literally about seven minutes from now. Yeah. Speaking to a large entity we've had a great relationship with, for a few years now.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Yeah. Those are contexts that we had to build absolutely over time a hundred percent. That's the kind of angle that, that an attorney, can get you. They can get your foot in the door because we're also approaching or trying to approach their legal department. Merchants are just going to get some customer service nine to five guys with no power at all.

Jeremy Stock:

Right. We deal directly with their general counsel office. David, just quickly to answer your question, anywhere between 5 and $7,000 typically is what probably 95% of our MATCH list clients fall into that window. Now, of course, that's speaking very generally. As Bryce pointed out, it matters what the reason code is. It matters who's on the other end. How hard are they going to fight circumstances, how obstinate are they going to be? What are the circumstances? These can cost more, certainly sometimes a lot more especially if there's arbitration or litigation involved. Generally speaking, the bulk of the MATCH list removal work we do, they're going to be in that 5 to $7,000 range.

Bryce Van De Moere:

I just want to interject one more thing. It's cool that we can get to the legal department, but I have no illusions about what's going on. Even the lawyers are just mouthpieces for risk and nobody gets to talk to risk and nobody knows who they are and nobody knows what they do or why they do. You just have to hope and pray. You're just trying to maximize your chances of whatever argument you're trying to make reaching risk. That, and that just seems to be better served going through their legal department. Most people just can't get there on their own.

David Goodale:

I'll tell you this, I've learned in my personal life that if you're going to hire a lawyer you go to the mall to the most convenient lawyer because it's five minutes away. Go to the expert that actually knows what they're doing. Clearly you guys are very knowledgeable about MATCH and what to do. Can you tell people a bit about your firm and how they can get in touch with you, because I know we have to wrap this up.

Jeremy Stock:

Absolutely. First and foremost, David, it was a real pleasure being on your podcast. Greatly appreciate the invitation. This is a payments litigation law firm. For the past 16 years, since 2008, all this firm has done is law related to credit card processing and digital transactions. It's very niche, it's very specialized. Bryce Vander Moore, who you saw there, who we're talking to today, does this work every single day. He's working on MATCH list Matters. He's litigating MATCH list Matters; he's in arbitration over MATCH list matters. It is something there that expertise, it doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes from years and years, of doing this type of work. That's what Global Legal Law Firm does. You can find us at globallegallawfirm.com. You can email us please at info@attorneygl.com. Again, that's info@attorneygl.com. We'd be happy to speak with you, whether it's a MATCH list, reserve fund issues, really anything related to credit card processing in the payment space.

Bryce Van De Moere:

Can I make one statement right now, just quick? I want everybody to understand they're probably going to laugh at this, but my goal is to never have a MATCH case again. I have become such a pain in the butt to MasterCard that they're like, hey, maybe we need to revamp these rules that have been unchanged for decades. It's just like a one-size-fits-all because it is just frustrating. Like, the inequity and the arbitrary actions that affect people's lives. I sort of look forward to the day that I have to shut down my MATCH practice. I just get angry every day, *laugh* every single day about this stuff. My goal is to get rid of it and it needs to change. Yeah. My, goal is to get rid of it.

David Goodale:

Thank you, guys. This was not a happy topic, but I'll tell you, I learned a lot about anybody who's having this problem today. By watching this I hope they become empowered. Please reach out to Global Legal. I'm hoping they can help you. Guys, that was a lot of info. Thanks for joining today.

Bryce Van De Moere:

David. I could go for hours. If you guys want to talk again and elaborate on anything I've talked about today, I'm more than happy to get the word out because people need to know that this is happening.

Jeremy Stock:

Yeah. Believe me, we're just getting warmed up, David *laughs*. No doubt. We can talk about this. No doubt for days. No doubt the inequity out there. David, it's a real pleasure. Thank you so much for having us on your podcast.

David Goodale:

Thank you, guys.

In case you found this discussion helpful and would like to reach out to the folks at Global Legal law firm you can do so at: https://www.globallegallawfirm.com/. Since 2008, Global Legal Law Firm: expert payments attorneys offering full service legal assistance across the nation, from contract review to litigation.

---

Need professional guidance?
Contact us for a free one hour consultation.

---