Print

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

So I ask, why isn't Witchel listed as a defendant?

And to all you lawyers out there, what happens when there is more than one class action for the benefit of "lenders"? Do you have to opt in/out of all? Do they eventually merge?

If you have specific questions or concerns regarding the pending litigation, please contact the attorney.

[lhsbandnurd]

So that's true in both cases? Probably should have known better.

(Although I would have been happy with wild speculation from non-participants ^_^ )

[onthefence]

So I ask, why isn't Witchel listed as a defendant?

My understanding is that there are several John Does listed in the complaint and it is open to revision in this respect.

[onthefence]

Prosper spokeswoman Tiffany Fox said, "We have agreed to settle this matter with the NASAA members, and we are moving ahead with our registration."

What happened to the quiet period?  Oh, I know.  It's a bogus self imposed quiet period used only as an excuse not to answer questions.  It is of course easy enough to break when it is favorable to them.

[mothandrust]

That $1 million that will disappear into state coffers represents for lenders a lot of resources that will not be spent servicing our loans and maintaining the timely flow of payments into our accounts.

This lawsuit will enrich the Rosen law firm, to be sure.  In a settlement (or a judgment that bankrupts Prosper), lenders will get very little and the lawyers will get fat fees.

We are cutting off our noses to spite our face here.

[nonattender]

Looks like a related concern was brought up ages ago.

... and lenders apparently didn't really care.

http://www.prosperreport.com/threads/6/1/6114.0.HTM

Dig this quote from nonattender:

The forum likely holds enough talent to fend off even the likes of the SEC... if such was necessary.

Dig that the discussion was, as you say, ages ago, in a warmer clime (and an uncertain time) - which no longer exists.

Lo, and it came to pass that the second mover was the first mover to a secondary market -
and, in so becoming became also, of necessity, the model of all models: primal and primary -
but, verily, I say unto you:  Prosper shall be reformed, as a mirror of the (ë/in)-ternal form.

No signs may accompany this transformation - it is not Revelation, but Regulation, upon us!
Have mercy, oh Lord - and deliver us from rescission, so that we may profit from recession!

-t

[onthefence]

[Chamatrain]

This lawsuit will enrich the Rosen law firm, to be sure.  In a settlement (or a judgment that bankrupts Prosper), lenders will get very little and the lawyers will get fat fees.

We are cutting off our noses to spite our face here.

I disagree.  Disregarding the findings of governmental organizations that PMI has been operating outside the law, I don't think there was much chance that Prosper was going to start fulfilling its obligations to me under the LRA, or that they were going to start operating in a responsible manner.  I think the possibility of my recovering even my principal amount is slim to none, based on Prosper's history of piss-poor to non-existent collection efforts. Prosper represents to me the crap that Paulson and his cronies are trying to hold up; and I support any effort that dumps PMI's management in the garbage can.

[mothandrust]

I totally understand the justified hostility towards Prosper's management.

Do you want to maximize your return on investment, or do you just care about karmic affirmation?

The states have looted PMI for $1 million, and now the Rosen firm is racking up legal fees with a cookie-cutter lawsuit.

All this takes away from Prosper's ability to service the loans that are making timely payments and passing these payments through to lenders.

[112233]

I totally understand the justified hostility towards Prosper's management.

Do you want to maximize your return on investment, or do you just care about karmic affirmation?

The states have looted PMI for $1 million, and now the Rosen firm is racking up legal fees with a cookie-cutter lawsuit.

All this takes away from Prosper's ability to service the loans that are making timely payments and passing these payments through to lenders.

you seem conflicted. prosper is wrong, but we shouldnt do anything about it? (please dont suggest a warm and fuzzy phone call with chris larsen)

[Nora_Lenderbee]

I totally understand the justified hostility towards Prosper's management.

Do you want to maximize your return on investment, or do you just care about karmic affirmation?

The states have looted PMI for $1 million, and now the Rosen firm is racking up legal fees with a cookie-cutter lawsuit.

All this takes away from Prosper's ability to service the loans that are making timely payments and passing these payments through to lenders.

you seem conflicted. prosper is wrong, but we shouldnt do anything about it? (please dont suggest a warm and fuzzy phone call with chris larsen)

Assuming it isn't possible to do both, which do you want to do more: (1) punish Prosper, or (2) get as much of your money back as possible?
Moth is pointing out that in this case, the punishment of Prosper (being fined 1 million) lowers the chance of getting all our money (because now Prosper has less money available for the lenders).

[The_Cat]

I don't think it is an alternative between those 2 choices. I see it more as:

1) Punish Prosper
2) Wait around for them to piss away the rest of thier funds on X-mas parties and Y/E bonus.

I think in either option the end result is Prosper is done. I don't expect them to begin operations again.

edit to add: I think they are already on auto pilot regarding loan service.

[Nora_Lenderbee]

I think in either option the end result is Prosper is done. I don't expect them to begin operations again.

No argument there.

I kind of agree with Moth's point, though: while the regulators just got 1 million bucks, we are getting nothing. Why is that right?

[Mtnchick]

We didn't punish Prosper. They broke laws and are being fined for that. They had legal counsel. Either that was bad legal counsel (and I believe Ira said Prosper would be able to sue the legal counsel in that case) or they had good legal counsel and didn't follow the advice. Either way, they caught the eyes of the SEC as has every P2P lender - catching the eyes of the NASAA wasn't exactly unexpected. Neither apparently, are the fines.

Has anyone figured out how much $$$ they've made off $176M in loans? Plus the $40M in VC? Somehow I think the $1M is a drop in the bucket to them and the cost of doing business.

[Chamatrain]

I kind of agree with Moth's point, though: while the regulators just got 1 million bucks, we are getting nothing. Why is that right?

Certainly.  I see his point also.  But it seems to me we are likely to come out farther ahead if Prosper is required to repurchase all defaulted, charged off, and 4+ loans instead of waiting and depending on PMI or their agent to properly service the still active loans.  I think the CA suit can pursue Larsen and others to find sufficient funds for everybody, including the large lenders like carrey79, Fred, Pensioner et al.