Consumer complaint received 2026-07-01 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: ZIONS BANCORPORATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Company : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX Zions Bancorporation Product : XXXX loan / business banking / loan servicing Issue : Prolonged processing, unclear servicing demands, operational interference, failure to identify contractual or regulatory basis I submit this complaint as the owner and guarantor of the borrower. For purposes of this complaint, XXXX means the same Texas limited liability company that obtained the XXXX loan from XX/XX/XXXX was formerly namedXX/XX/XXXX XXXX and is now legally named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, with anticipated operations under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Complainant means the owner and guarantor of XXXX. This complaint concerns XXXX handling and servicing of XXXX XXXX loan relationship. The issue is not ordinary dissatisfaction with processing speed. The issue is XXXX repeated creation of operational delay, uncertainty, and borrower burden without clearly identifying the contractual, regulatory, or servicing basis for its demands. The loan was presented as a streamlined XXXX financing product. In practice, the transaction was prolonged well beyond the expected startup timeline, creating uncertainty around closing, capital access, disbursement, and XXXX of funds. During that period, XXXX was carrying fixed business obligations, including lease, insurance, utilities, setup expenses, and other operational commitments. Amegys handling of the transaction materially affected Borrowers ability to plan and operate. XX/XX/XXXXhas since undergone a legal name change from XX/XX/XXXXXXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and will operate under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX remains the same Texas limited liability company. The EIN, ownership, management, guarantor obligations, collateral, and repayment obligations remain unchanged. There has been no sale, transfer, merger, dissolution, change of ownership, or substitution of borrower. XXXX was notified of this legal nameXX/XX/XXXX update XXXX Complainants XXXX contact and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, advised that she had submitted the request for the name change nearly XXXX week ago. Complainant has already provided XXXX with the Texas Secretary of State documentation evidencing the legal name change, as well as the Assumed Name Certificate evidencing the XXXX. These documents show that XXXX remains the same Texas limited liability company and that the change concerns Borrowers legal name and assumed name, not a sale, transfer, merger, dissolution, ownership change, or borrower substitution. If this matter were being processed as an ordinary administrative name-change update, the subsequent delay and document demand are difficult to reconcile. After nearly a week, XXXX requested a broad package including a business plan, XXXX years of projections, assumptions, average sale/customer information, and proof of use of funds. That request appears materially broader than a routine administrative update and more consistent with a post-closing underwriting or servicing review. XXXX has not clearly stated whether it is treating this matter as : XXXX an administrativeXX/XX/XXXXname/XX/XX/XXXX update ; XXXX a loan modification request ; XXXX a servicing-consent review ; XXXX a post-closing underwriting review ; or XXXX an alleged compliance or covenant issue. XXXX also has not identified any specific loan-document provision, XXXX regulation , or XXXX provision requiring a full business plan, XX/XX/XXXXyear projections, customer revenue assumptions, and use-of-funds documentation merely because the same borrower changed its legal name andXX/XX/XXXX. The applicable XXXX regulations do not appear, on their face, to impose such a requirement for a same-entity legal name/XX/XX/XXXX update. XXXX regulations recognize working capital as an eligible XXXX ( a ) use of proceeds under XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ). XXXX regulations also identify restricted uses of proceeds under XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX, but XXXX has not identified any restricted use, misuse of proceeds, or factual basis for treating Borrowers use of proceeds as noncompliant. General XXXX loan conditions are addressed in XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX, including personal guarantees, appraisals, and hazard insurance, but XXXX has not identified any breached condition arising from XX/XX/XXXX legal name/XX/XX/XXXXupdate XXXX The absence of a clearly identified regulatory basis is significant. If XXXX is imposing these requirements as an internal servicing preference, it should say so. If XXXX is imposing them pursuant to a loan-document covenant, it should identify the clause. If XXXX is imposing them pursuant to XXXX servicing requirements, it should identify the applicable authority. XXXX should not be required to comply with expanding, open-ended demands without being told what legal, contractual, or servicing standard is being applied. Further, XXXX apparent framing of the proceeds issue is inaccurate or incomplete. The loan proceeds were disbursed for working capital, but not all proceeds have been spent. Documentation can be provided for funds used to date. Receipts can not exist for funds that remain available and have not yet been XXXX. For remaining working capital, a current use-of-funds plan or allocation schedule is the appropriate form of documentation. Complainant is not refusing to provide reasonable documentation on Borrowers behalf. Complainant objects to XXXX failure to define the nature, scope, deadline, and basis for the request. This lack of clarity is creating another operational delay for XXXX. It requires XXXX to divert time from ordinary operations to respond to an undefined post-closing review that has not been tied to any identified default, covenant issue, regulatory requirement, or borrower substitution. This is particularly concerning because this is not the first operational delay in this same XXXX loan relationship. XXXX original handling of the transaction already materially disrupted XX/XX/XXXX startup timeline. XXXX is now creating additional post-closing uncertainty in response to a same-entity legal name/XX/XX/XXXXupdate.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation