Print

[Beerbud1]

How many do you need?

Named plaintiffs will get more than the rest of us, because...

Their named Plaintiffs! they represented the Class, they worked on behalf of the class!

[msava]

How many do you need?

Named plaintiffs will get more than the rest of us, because...

Their named Plaintiffs! they represented the Class, they worked on behalf of the class!

What did they do?

[ira01]

Shocked that the only people winning are the lawyers.  Let me know when it's time for me to say "I told you so, eight years ago".

Apparently you need to learn to read.  If the lawyers are getting 3.3M, and escrow costs are $.25M, even if all other costs are $450K, that means that everyone else is collectively getting $6M -- which is almost TWICE as much as the lawyers are getting. 

[ira01]

How many do you need?

Named plaintiffs will get more than the rest of us, because...

Because they did work, unlike the rest of us.  And I would be very surprised if they get much compensation. 

[Capital_Finance_Group]

How many do you need?

Named plaintiffs will get more than the rest of us, because...

Because they did work, unlike the rest of us.  And I would be very surprised if they get much compensation.  

Personally I am not concerned with what the Lawyers or the Named Plaintiffs receive. If I had wanted what they get I could have made the decisions to fill their shoes and do what they did do - I did not. What I am concerned about is what I get.

[Beerbud1]

How many do you need?

Named plaintiffs will get more than the rest of us, because...

Because they did work, unlike the rest of us.  And I would be very surprised if they get much compensation. 

Personally I am not concerned with what the Lawyers or the Named Plaintiffs receive. If I had wanted what they get i could have made the decisions to fill their shoes and do what they did do - I did not. What I am concerned about is what I get.

Fixed your post!

[bamalucky]

Although i'm on the good side of this settlement because I have losses,I don't think it's fair at all to go by losses.

How much you lost doesn't have anything to do with buying illegal products.

[Beerbud1]

Although i'm on the good side of this settlement because I have losses,I don't think it's fair at all to go by losses.

How much you lost doesn't have anything to do with buying illegal products.

Really? Although I'm the wrong one to answer this question because it will attract the ire of you know who, why should someone who broke even or even made a profit be enriched? Isn't the concept of a lawsuit the intent to help the harmed? If its about selling illegal securities but several were enriched or didn't lose any money vs. some who lost alot? Really? Is that really fair?

[ira01]

Although i'm on the good side of this settlement because I have losses,I don't think it's fair at all to go by losses.

How much you lost doesn't have anything to do with buying illegal products.

Really? Although I'm the wrong one to answer this question because it will attract the ire of you know who, why should someone who broke even or even made a profit be enriched? Isn't the concept of a lawsuit the intent to help the harmed? If its about selling illegal securities but several were enriched or didn't lose any money vs. some who lost alot? Really? Is that really fair?

There are two sides to this issue.  Yes, it is reasonable to compensate those who lost money, as those losses were likely at least exacerbated by Prosper's illegal security sales (because had they registered the securities, they would have had to make far more accurate disclosures than the blatantly misleading crap they constantly spouted during P1).  But the other hand, even those who broke even (or even came out ahead) were still "harmed" by Prosper's illegality, because had Prosper made truthful disclosures, they might have invested the money elsewhere and made far more. 

[nonattender]

But the other hand, even those who broke even (or even came out ahead) were still "harmed" by Prosper's illegality, because had Prosper made truthful disclosures, they might have invested the money elsewhere and made far more. 

And we arrive, full circle, at the reality that most retail "risk capital" deployed during this time period would have been destroyed by the overall markets, so, even the guy who lost 4% in/on his not-properly-ex-post-facto-registered Prosper notes would have (80%) taken a greater haircut, anywhere else.

So if one plays "woulda, coulda, shoulda", one is doomed to infiinite regress, on both sides, of what, in reality, "didn't" happen and what we can't know.

Ergo...

*shrug*

[xraider]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the people who were defrauded by Madoff would have lost their money anyway too?

Nice world view.  Have a scotch with the new Prosper board yet?

[nonattender]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the people who were defrauded by Madoff would have lost their money anyway too?

What I said, in language you may better understand, is:  "This line of speculative reasoning cuts both ways and is therefore not fruitful - move on."
Which is what I suspect whomever is deciding this case also said, leading up to a decision to award damages only to those who suffered damages.

Nice world view.  Have a scotch with the new Prosper board yet?

No - but that'd be neat.  (*zing*)

[msava]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the people who were defrauded by Madoff would have lost their money anyway too?

What I said, in language you may better understand, is:  "This line of speculative reasoning cuts both ways and is therefore not fruitful - move on."
Which is what I suspect whomever is deciding this case also said, leading up to a decision to award damages only to those who suffered damages.

Nice world view.  Have a scotch with the new Prosper board yet?

No - but that'd be neat.  (*zing*)

I had drinks with the old board and was not impressed.

[xraider]

NA, if you invest enough I'm sure they'll treat you to a neat scotch.

[tmullin1217]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the people who were defrauded by Madoff would have lost their money anyway too?

What I said, in language you may better understand, is:  "This line of speculative reasoning cuts both ways and is therefore not fruitful - move on."
Which is what I suspect whomever is deciding this case also said, leading up to a decision to award damages only to those who suffered damages.

Nice world view.  Have a scotch with the new Prosper board yet?

No - but that'd be neat.  (*zing*)

I had drinks with the old board and was not impressed.

So, your relationship with them is on the rocks?