Unless a majority of lenders object (highly unlikely), all of Penncro's loans will be switched over to Amshar.
Has anyone considered that Penncro fired Prosper as a customer?
If I remember correctly, they were operating at a loss to gain the lions share of Prosper's business, hoping it would grow to infinity and beyond. They might have grown tired of bleeding red on the Prosper account.
I wouldn't be surprised to see penncro off the list once the collections switcharoo happens...
(just a theory)
Prosper was fired by one of the original collection agencies, and it simply switched all of the loans over to a new agency. The fact that they are using an opt-out process with a virtually pretertermined outcome this time around - rather than just announcing the change - suggests that either (a) Prosper has become more sensitive to the contractual compliance issues, and at least wants to present a plausible claim that lenders consented to modification of the contract, or (b) Prosper is making this change by choice, not by necessity, and as a result believes its legal position is more tenuous this time around, so it has to cover its arse a bit better, if still imperfectly.
(a) doesn't make any sense to me, since if Penncro fired Prosper, then there wouldn't be any contract compliance issues for Prosper -- staying with Penncro would have become impossible, so of course there would be a switch.
I've always been told that contracts are supposed to be written in anticipation of everything that could go wrong, and provide mechanisms for resolving the potential impasses. Many contracts have an "acts of God" clause that releases one or both parties from their obligations if performance becomes impossible. It would have been simple enough to include an "acts of Penncro" clause which created a process for Prosper to switch collection agencies as needed.
But Prosper didn't, and, in the absence of such a clause, I don't think there's a meaningful difference in their legal position depending on whether Penncro fired Prosper or vice versa. (Suppose I contract with a talent agency to supply Britney Spears for a concert, and the agency fails to include the usual "acts of God" clauses. On the day of the concert, Britney is locked up somewhere, so they send me William Hung instead. Does the fact that it was impossible for them to perform as agreed relieve them of liability for breach of contract?)
None of this changes the fact that, given Penncro's performance thus far, I think this change will be beneficial to lenders. (And, as I said early in this thread, AmSher looks like a good fit at first glance.) As such, I have no interest in challenging the switch on technical grounds, but am merely speculating about why Prosper does what it does in the way that it does it.