Open Question to Prosper (Doug Fuller) on the NAT Loans, since he reads here maybe he will see this one:
Not sure if this specific NAT loan has been addressed yet, but still something that needs to be addressed.
If the loans were specifically handpicked by Prosper, why would Prosper sue an individual that appears to be homeless?
In April 2008, Prosper filed their complaint against Roger Treskunoff in the San Francisco Superior Court. (All public information so I can disclose here). This was eventually dismissed (without prejudice) by Prosper. From the complaint filed, the address provided by Prosper is 290 Turk Street, San Francisco.
A quick google search of the address determines the address to be the Central City Hospitality House, who has served the homeless community since 1967.
http://www.hospitalityhouse.org/1) if this individual was homeless when they took out the loan, did this loan get verified (likely not), the address is even in their own city!
2) once the complaint was prepared and it was discovered the individual provided an address, why would you choose to incur the legal fees to sue this individual
3) if these loans were handpicked, was there any due diligence completed to verify any information?
I have no loans that were included in the NAT loans, but makes you wonder. If this one has been addressed, I apologize for bringing it back up again.