Print

[Staneslav]

a

[ira01]

A bigger problem is that no doubt some of the email addresses used by those accounts are no longer working, so lenders may not get Prosper notifications of the settlement, that money is there, etc.  So the agreement will need to require Prosper to take some additional steps to contact lenders for whom email notification appears not to be working.  Certainly snail mail notice is perfectly reasonable to require. But I don't think it would be reasonable to require Prosper to go to the ends of the Earth to try to find missing lenders.  For them, I think that the settlement money (like any other money left at an old financial institution too long) should eventually escheat to the State.

The only thing beyond "snail mail" and email may be calling last known phone numbers of those who don't respond and some sort of press announcement.

I don't think individual phone calls would be reasonable, except for perhaps a robo-call with a recording saying that they might be entitled to some money and they should contact Prosper.  Individual calls by humans would cost a bundle of money. 

[msava]

I think it is likely that the money will just be credited to your Prosper account. 

I'm not sure it's as easy as that.  Are all those Prosper accounts still open?  And/or are they all still linked to functioning bank accounts?

I think money lost would be fairest as well.

I cordially disagree. 

Cuz then you'd end up paying the least-talented lenders the most money (respective to their outlays).  Prosper had nothing to do with each lender's loan-picking acumen relative to other lenders.  For example, if the old loans were registered securities, then me-thinks this wouldn't have prevented a muleshoes scenario from playing out.

Prosper was not created for savvy lenders, rather trusting souls that had faith in people and believed the BS spewed by Larsen.

[msava]

OK, so my account was tied to WAMU which is no longer in existence... so then I'd probably have to sign the new lender agreement to add a new bank account.

I think I'd rather let them keep the $.47

My account was tied to Bank Atlantic which is no longer in existence. I want my $.47.

[bamalucky]

A fair way (for most) would be a percentage of dollars loaned.

[TotoMMB]

OK, so my account was tied to WAMU which is no longer in existence... so then I'd probably have to sign the new lender agreement to add a new bank account.

I think I'd rather let them keep the $.47

Depends. Do you still have the account? I had a Wamu account, which has since become Chase. Same acct # and same routing #. In fact, I still have Wamu checks which work. So, theoretically, you could pull your $.47 out.

[yankeefan]

I am expecting the settlement to be in the form of a 10% credit against $X of new prosper lending, with $X related to the total loans made by each person in the class.

[ira01]

I am expecting the settlement to be in the form of a 10% credit against $X of new prosper lending, with $X related to the total loans made by each person in the class.

I strongly doubt it.  For one thing, I don't think the class representatives would agree to such a scheme.  For another, I think that so many lenders would object and opt out that the settlement would be torpedoed.  Also, isn't Prosper unavailable to lenders in some states?  Although I would certainly be thankful for my banning.   

[artjunkie]

OK, so my account was tied to WAMU which is no longer in existence... so then I'd probably have to sign the new lender agreement to add a new bank account.

I think I'd rather let them keep the $.47

Depends. Do you still have the account? I had a Wamu account, which has since become Chase. Same acct # and same routing #. In fact, I still have Wamu checks which work. So, theoretically, you could pull your $.47 out.

Nope, I closed that account years ago when they started charging a monthly fee, and moved my money to a CU even though I kept enough to not pay a monthly fee.

In any case, I don't think its fair to determine settlement by dollar amounts of loans, outstanding balances, or the like. The settlement is for Prosper selling illegal securities, so it should be based on the number of loans, not on the amounts in question.

[bamalucky]

Some of us loaned more $$ on less loans.   How is loan count fair?

[artjunkie]

Only because of the lawsuit.. the stated violation was selling illegal securities, not that some lenders lost more or less than others as the result of that illegal action.

Even those who MADE money on the security were still sold illegal securities, and so those lenders should also be compensated... again, because the violation was selling illegal securities.

[xraider]

I think the settlement should be based on harm suffered.  People like MuleShoes who made a lot of bad loans have an argument that had proper disclosures been made, they would not have lost all they did.  One element of recovery in litigation is damage.  The mere illegal selling of securities, without damage, would not entitle the class to recovery.  That would lead to an SEC fine or other penalty.

[ira01]

Only because of the lawsuit.. the stated violation was selling illegal securities, not that some lenders lost more or less than others as the result of that illegal action.

Even those who MADE money on the security were still sold illegal securities, and so those lenders should also be compensated... again, because the violation was selling illegal securities.

That's true, but ignores the fact that the legal remedy for purchasing unregistered securities is rescission.  That means that the sale of an unregistered security is voidable by the buyer, and the remedy is that he/she is entitled to undo the sale and get their money back.  That would suggest that a distribution based on dollars is more fair than one based on loan count. 

[moremoneymarc]

I wonder if the amount was leaked as a sort of trial balloon to see what the die hards in org would settle for.   The question I would ask is how bad of a deal should be opted out on as a show of dissatisfaction with the negotiated settlement?

[xraider]

I wonder if the amount was leaked as a sort of trial balloon to see what the die hards in org would settle for.   The question I would ask is how bad of a deal should be opted out on as a show of dissatisfaction with the negotiated settlement?

I doubt it.  Vocal as we are, I would bet we're only a small percentage of the class.

We may be able to come up with some pretty compelling objections, however.