Print

[ira01]

I got nothing.   :'(

Your first check was $13.01, so this one would have been $7.41 but the cutoff was $10.

I told you they shouldn't have settled for a pittance.  If they had negotiated harder or the case went to trial, you'd be getting a check right now.

Bullshit.  We all very well may have gotten nothing.  $10 million wasn't a "pittance."  And remind us all, did you file objections to the settlement in court as was your right? 

[mothandrust]

My objections would be thrown in the round file.  No sense wasting a perfectly good postage stamp.

[ira01]

My objections would be thrown in the round file.  No sense wasting a perfectly good postage stamp.

That's not true.  I worked on two class action settlements, and in both cases all objections were presented to and considered by the attorneys and the judge. 

[mothandrust]

And in these cases did a class member who was due 0.0001% of the settlement write a letter expressing their personal opinion which caused a substantial change to be made?

[ira01]

And in these cases did a class member who was due 0.0001% of the settlement write a letter expressing their personal opinion which caused a substantial change to be made?

So you think that if a class member's objection doesn't result in a "substantial change" to the settlement (which most likely was vigorously negotiated by both sides over a period of a year or more), then it was just "thrown in the round file"? 

[Mtnchick]

Can we take the arguing back over to General Topics??! 

[mothandrust]

So you think that if a class member's objection doesn't result in a "substantial change" to the settlement (which most likely was vigorously negotiated by both sides over a period of a year or more), then it was just "thrown in the round file"?

And there's a difference?

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

The terms and timing of the settlement considered the ongoing existential risk of Prosper's failure as an ongoing concern. Similarly, it considered the extent to which the settlement itself would further place Prosper at risk to an extent that it might impact the ability of lenders to receive payment.

Ironically, it was in the interest of the class to ensure that Prosper could remain viable long enough to satisfy the settlement.

There was also an uncertain level of risk to lenders related to the outcome of a trial - and to what extent a judgment (if the class prevailed) would be materially higher - tempered also by the idea that going to trial would increase the legal fees due to class counsel (bigger settlement = bigger $ to attorneys) - and further would delay payment for an uncertain amount of time.  Then again, let's say Prosper had to pay more - and then declared bankruptcy. Would the class be better off?

The final settlement was significantly higher than where Prosper started, but it's worth remembering that much changed during those years in terms of Prosper's leadership team and their business position.  The new executive team were more pragmatic in their approach than the original team.

[mothandrust]

Ironically, it was in the interest of the class to ensure that Prosper could remain viable long enough to satisfy the settlement.

How was this determined?  Was there some kind of poll, that I, as a small investor in Prosper, did not get to vote in?

My preference would have been to receive $0 in settlement checks, but to have candid answers to many questions via the discovery process, ensuring that the same individuals never defrauded other investors ever again.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Ironically, it was in the interest of the class to ensure that Prosper could remain viable long enough to satisfy the settlement.

How was this determined?  Was there some kind of poll, that I, as a small investor in Prosper, did not get to vote in?

My preference would have been to receive $0 in settlement checks, but to have candid answers to many questions via the discovery process, ensuring that the same individuals never defrauded other investors ever again.

That sounds like a different type of case, one which I am sure you are prepared to file by now - although I harbor some doubt you'd find competent counsel to take that case on contingency.  Some of us actually did try to file a different type of case, but that was before the SEC stepped into the mix. This case was about the sale of securities - and as much as I'd like to see people like CL go to jail - that wasn't the objective in this more narrowly focused civil case.

Actually, there was sort of a poll  in which the investors got to vote.  You should have received a notification to class members  in the mail - and there was a web site for you to review documents and provide feedback.

Don't get me wrong, I would also have preferred to probe prosper in a different type of case, but I think we played the best hand we had available. I am sorry you are still unhappy with your experience.  I think the best path for most of us was to recover the settlement and move on.  We probably got more than we could have reasonably expected. I give a great deal of credit to the Rosen Law team for being quite aggressive and thorough in their work.  Watching CL storm out of a conference room in a seething tantrum was almost worth the whole experience.  As a postscript, if we had left this in the unstable hands of Beerbud, you'd be lucky to have received 1/10th + some insanely over-valued back-of-the-bus non-voting stock in Prosper (at a time when Prosper's future didn't look particularly good).

[Mtnchick]

Don't get me wrong, I would also have preferred to probe prosper in a different type of case, but I think we played the best hand we had available. I am sorry you are still unhappy with your experience.  I think the best path for most of us was to recover the settlement and move on.  We probably got more than we could have reasonably expected. I give a great deal of credit to the Rosen Law team for being quite aggressive and thorough in their work.  Watching CL storm out of a conference room in a seething tantrum was almost worth the whole experience.  As a postscript, if we had left this in the unstable hands of Beerbud, you'd be lucky to have received 1/10th + some insanely over-valued back-of-the-bus non-voting stock in Prosper (at a time when Prosper's future didn't look particularly good).

Thank you for the work you've done!

[mothandrust]

That sounds like a different type of case, one which I am sure you are prepared to file by now - although I harbor some doubt you'd find competent counsel to take that case on contingency.

No, just wanted the executives to go under oath and then have those depositions on the internet somewhere, preferably on video to see them squirm.

Watching CL storm out of a conference room in a seething tantrum was almost worth the whole experience.

Tell me someone recorded that and can put it on youtube!

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Watching CL storm out of a conference room in a seething tantrum was almost worth the whole experience.

Tell me someone recorded that and can put it on youtube!

I wish. The room had a glass wall, so the visual lingered wonderfully.  It was very dramatic.

There was also another incident involving a tantrum. Nobody took that person seriously again after that.  Of course, that person created material risk to the case - and wasted loads of the counsel?s and the court?s time because he lacked basic impulse control and couldn?t keep his knife-drawer shut. Yet, he had no problem cashing his incentive checks from what I gather.

[Knudtson]

That sounds like a different type of case, one which I am sure you are prepared to file by now - although I love these rangefinders for hunting and harbor some doubt you'd find competent counsel to take that case on contingency.

No, just wanted the executives to go under oath and then have those depositions on the internet somewhere, preferably on video to see them squirm.

Watching CL storm out of a conference room in a seething tantrum was almost worth the whole experience.

Tell me someone recorded that and can put it on youtube!