Prospers.ORG Prosper Forum

Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Prospers.ORG!   Login here

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Prosper's Settlement with California?  (Read 3506 times)

112233

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +4863/-6483
  • Posts: 28857
    • View Profile
    • Prosper Report
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

you're

God-Father

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 3189
  • Pay up!
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Settlement with California?
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2009, 05:31:35 am »

Quote
Prosper’s social lending model typically involves loans in relatively small principal amounts.

I would think that $25K is pretty big for a signature loan.

Quote
.......... the California Corporations Commissioner finds that no further action is necessary on behalf of the California Department of Corporations.

Sleeping with the enemy


Lobby
Logged

Beerbud1

  • Guest
Re: Prosper's Settlement with California?
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2009, 06:08:58 am »

Second for the Lobby
Logged

112233

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +4863/-6483
  • Posts: 28857
    • View Profile
    • Prosper Report
Re: Prosper's Settlement with California?
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2009, 07:35:56 am »

lobby ok
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

you're

NewHorizon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 3914
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Settlement with California?
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2009, 01:20:42 pm »

http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/p/ProsperMarketplace_CA.pdf
I gather this isn't related to the NASAA settlement...

BTW, is this vaguely worded or what...

Quote
5.
The Commissioner presented the question of whether issuance of a security is involved in the operation of Prosper’s lending platform, and Prosper offered its perspective to the Commissioner on this issue.
6.
After reviewing Prosper’s business and the operation of its lending platform, the Department of Corporations determined not to require Prosper to register under Title 4 of the California Corporations Code.

I read this to mean that before SEC's involvement, California's Dept of Corporations bought Prosper's view that Prosper wasn't issuing securities.

Subsequent findings of the SEC and NASAA said otherwise, of course (regarding Prosper 1.0).  But I gather California isn't likely to revisit the issue.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up