Collections Test- Blog part 3

[no-whammies]

The Results From the Legal Collections Test Deadbeat Strategy Guide; How to Skip Debt (A Complete Roadmap)

11/3/09 posted by Doug Fuller    

Before discussing the results of the test, let’s review what we were testing. In November 2007, 74 loans that would have been...
...undertake in the future. This is a work in process.

Fixed.

[NewHorizon]

Fuller's level of incompetence, misrepresentation and failure is stunning.

While I don't necessarily disagree, I also think that - much like the rest of us - DF didn't understand the nature of Prosper borrowers when he first signed on.

[bamalucky]

DF didn't understand the nature of Prosper borrowers when he first signed on.

Then maybe he shouldn't have let his mouth write checks his actions couldn't cash.

[zapp05]

A: In my last 18 months at Credigy, I testified live at 42 trials. My record was 41-1. By the way, I fired the law firm where we lost.

So much for a near-pristine record.

heh, sounds like not much live testifying has even gone on in most of these cases   

[onthefence]

A: In my last 18 months at Credigy, I testified live at 42 trials. My record was 41-1. By the way, I fired the law firm where we lost.

So much for a near-pristine record.

His record of 41-1 still stands.  He did not testify live at any of these prosper loan cases.  Learn to pay attention to his wording.

[112233]

A: In my last 18 months at Credigy, I testified live at 42 trials. My record was 41-1. By the way, I fired the law firm where we lost.

So much for a near-pristine record.

His record of 41-1 still stands.  He did not testify live at any of these prosper loan cases.  Learn to pay attention to his wording.

only count a loss if df testifies? What kind of sense does that make? The relationship is being involved in the case, not the act of testifying.

[bamalucky]

* bamalucky shoots to get another comment approved

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Angry | November 4th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

At what point tdo you think resigning from your position at PMI is in order? Pathetic would be an improvement in collections.

[ira01]

* bamalucky shoots to get another comment approved

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Angry | November 4th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

At what point tdo you think resigning from your position at PMI is in order? Pathetic would be an improvement in collections.

Yeah, I'm sure THAT will get approved.   

[regeneration]

Prosper did repurchase the loans. 

Well, that makes it sound like they paid for them, which they did not.  

Nor did they give a monthly accounting, which was part of the "purchase" transaction agreement.

At what point does lack of consideration invalidate a contract?

[ira01]

Prosper did repurchase the loans. 

Well, that makes it sound like they paid for them, which they did not.  

Partially correct -- Prosper DID pay the lenders who opted-out of the NAT.  As per the agreement, Prosper did not pay the opting-in lenders up-front -- they accepted a pro-rata share of any NAT recoveries less certain expenses (including the amounts paid to the opting-out lenders).  Given Prosper's ineptitude in conducting the NAT, it looks like the opting-in lenders will get nothing.

Nor did they give a monthly accounting, which was part of the "purchase" transaction agreement.

True.

At what point does lack of consideration invalidate a contract?

This isn't a case of lack of consideration, because the opting-in lenders did get consideration -- the contingent right to the NAT proceeds.  I think the best way to characterize the situation is a breach of contract by Prosper.  Prosper's breach regarding the lack of monthly accountings would probably be considered a minor breach, entitling the opting-in lenders to sue for any damages (which I think would pretty much be non-existent), but not to rescind the contract.  More troubling would be Prosper's fucking up the whole NAT.  It is possible that Prosper's lack of competent handling of the NAT breached express warranties to the opting-in lenders (I can't remember now exactly what, if anything Prosper promised in the way of its proposed handling of the NAT at the time, almost two years ago), or possibly breached implied warranties, or at the very least breached the contract between Prosper and its opting-in lenders.  There may also be fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation issues with respect to Prosper's handling of the NAT.  Of course, the NAT is only one small part of the overall picture of Prosper's repeated screwing over of lenders. 

Needless to say, TINLA.

[xraider]

Ira, I kinda sorta think (as in really think) that Hunt & Henriquez owes each NAT lender a duty to prosecute the NAT cases appropriately.  I kinda sorta think, too, that H&H breached that duty.  Your post about service of the summons and complaint, by itself, speaks volumes to that. 

[112233]

btw, did DF fire Hunt & Henriquez? Supposedly he likes to fire losing law firms.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

I love how Prosper buried this important blog post in the middle of a rapidly updating 7 part fluff series.  Gotta get that icky truth moved off the front page (and off our RSS readers) as quickly as possible.

[Faithful_Steward1]

Well I found it interesting that it only took a letter from a law firm to get 5% of the loans brought current that had been written off. I would have loved to have 5% of my defaults brought current from the cost of a mere letter on legal stationery. Heck I would have even fronted the cost.

[animalhouse]

Well I found it interesting that it only took a letter from a law firm to get 5% of the loans brought current that had been written off.

Do we have anyway of knowing if this is true?  If they were brought current, do we know if the lenders recieved any of the recovered money?