Print

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Why would the "quiet period" necessitate Prosper removing all historical press releases, blog coverage and press coverage from their site?

http://www.prosper.com/about/media_room.aspx

ETA: Not even the sacred "stories" were safe?

http://www.prosper.com/prm/stories/

[112233]

because they're full of [edited to remove profanity]

[Fred93]

Why would the "quiet period" necessitate Prosper removing all historical press releases, blog coverage and press coverage from their site?

It makes discovery easy for the lawyers workin' up a suit against 'ya.

[112233]

just for the record, prosperreport is not in a quiet period 

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

One hopes Prosper is not planning to violate the instructions in this letter...

(thanks Mark)

   Prosper Lenders’ Legal Counsel Issues Formal Notice - Moves to Preserve Evidence
« on: June 26, 2008, 09:08:13 PM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday, the Legal Counsel retained by a group of Prosper Lenders provided Prosper Marketplace with formal notice that this group of Prosper lenders intend to file a lawsuit. 

Dear Mr. Giedgowd: 

Although my previous letter should have sufficed, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, I send this letter to place you on formal notice that a lawsuit against Prosper Marketplace, Inc. will soon be filed.  Accordingly, please direct PMI to preserve all evidence, including, without limitation, all electronic records, email communications (including, without limitation, reports made by members with respect to particular listings and communications between PMI employees and individuals about particular loans or policies), records provided by PMI's collection agencies, the spreebb forums maintained by Prosper until November, 2007, the current Prosper forums, the blogs and comments, and any other potential evidence of any kind whatsoever.  This includes the immediate cessation of any normal data destruction, including the reuse of any backup media. 

[Mark12547]

http://www.prospers.org/forum/prosper_lenders%E2%80%99_legal_counsel_issues_formal_notice_moves_to_preserve_evidence-t8060.0.html

(I hate broken links) 

[Loan_shark_74]

The word must be getting out. I have several new lates over the last three days.

Same here. I have 7 new lates. In 3 days, I almost doubled my number of troubled loans.

[112233]

Soon after their dining table epiphany, Prosper's Larsen and Witchel each kicked in $10,000 and hired a lawyer to see if their idea would fly with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.

http://www.benchmark.com/news/sv/2007/01_25_2007b.php

so, did they get bad advice or ignore it?

[Loan_shark_74]

lol.  I think I'd like to be there to see them cross examine you.

LMAO, I was thinking the same thing. 

[ira01]

Soon after their dining table epiphany, Prosper's Larsen and Witchel each kicked in $10,000 and hired a lawyer to see if their idea would fly with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.

http://www.benchmark.com/news/sv/2007/01_25_2007b.php

so, did they get bad advice or ignore it?

Either way, it will be interesting.  If they ignored it, that will greatly increase the odds of Larsen and Wichtel being personally liable.  If it was bad advice, then the lawyer (and his/her malpractice insurer) will soon be participating in the fun.  Either way, it brings more money to the table for lenders (and their lawyers) to slurp up.

[Loan_shark_74]

So basically whoever files the class action suit first controls the case?  For practical purposes, are we locked into this attorney if we want to participate in the class but not as named plaintiffs?

Not necessarily.  That used to usually be the case, but it changed some years ago.  Now I believe that the plaintiffs with the largest financial stake can control the case if they so desire.  So it is possible that other, larger lenders could file a different class action with other attorneys which would probably have priority.  As a practical matter, though, who knows if that will happen.  If this winds up being the only class action, then yes, lenders' choices will pretty much be limited to going along with this case, or opting out.  Anyone who opts out can sue on their own, but that isn't likely for any but very large lenders. 

They have lots of ongoing cases, but very few settled cases.  And ongoing could just mean they filed some papers as soon as they saw a press release from the SEC. 

Yes, that appears likely. 

Then I am joining the case started by Fred93, shark, carrey79, pensioner, and aberdeen. They are the top 5 lenders by amount invested. This is, of course, if there is a case. I will keep up with Fred's postings. 

[112233]

Why would the "quiet period" necessitate Prosper removing all historical press releases, blog coverage and press coverage from their site?

http://www.prosper.com/about/media_room.aspx

ETA: Not even the sacred "stories" were safe?

http://www.prosper.com/prm/stories/

was the lender's help gone since the beginning of this quiet period?
http://www.prosper.com/help/

[ira01]

Why would the "quiet period" necessitate Prosper removing all historical press releases, blog coverage and press coverage from their site?

http://www.prosper.com/about/media_room.aspx

ETA: Not even the sacred "stories" were safe?

http://www.prosper.com/prm/stories/

was the lender's help gone since the beginning of this quiet period?
http://www.prosper.com/help/

No, and it still isn't -- your link works fine for me.

[Fred93]

Then I am joining the case started by Fred93, shark, carrey79, pensioner, and aberdeen.

Just to keep the facts straight -- I am not involved in any lawsuit.

[ira01]

Then I am joining the case started by Fred93, shark, carrey79, pensioner, and aberdeen.

Just to keep the facts straight -- I am not involved in any lawsuit.

You've done ok at Prosper, with an ROI that while not stellar, at least is significantly more than a CD pays.  Of course, if it turns out that lenders can choose which "unregistered securities" they want to require Prosper to repurchase, getting reimbursed only for your $90K in defaults and $15K in lates would be a nice bonus for you, instantly making your ROI amazing.  But the people who should really be considering filing their own lawsuit are Pensioner and Muleshoes.  Between just the two of them they have over $650,000 in defaults, and another $22K in lates.  That would certainly have a dramatic effect on their ROI's, which are both negative:  -1.21% for Pensioner, and a breath-taking -20.36% for Muleshoes.