Print

[Fred93]

I can't think of too many methods of verification, within the cost parameters of small-scale Internet lending, that can verify the difference between spouses in an Internet financial transaction.

You're approximately right.  This is a difficult distinction.   However, Prosper makes phone calls to borrowers, or at least they used to do this, and on a phone call you can usually tell a female voice from a male voice.

If they are actually lying for the purpose of getting all the Lender's sued, then yes. 
If they are actually lying for the purpose of screwing Lenders and the Plaintiff out of a legit ID Theft claim, then yes. 
If they are splitting legal hairs so as to make it harder for the Plaintiff to get out of paying for a debt that he was aware of, then no.

I don't mind them making a confusing argument, or kicking up dust in front of the plaintiff, to make his life more difficult.  I draw the line when they lie.  I don't care WHY they lied.  Ends don't justify the means.

In this case they lied.  Its not a legal hair when you're on record over and over again saying you do one thing, and then you tell the court that you didn't do that thing, but did the opposite.

The lawyers should be sanctioned.  The bankruptcy court probably doesn't have time for such issues, but that doesn't change the facts.

[Gogmagog]

In this case they lied.  Its not a legal hair when you're on record over and over again saying you do one thing, and then you tell the court that you didn't do that thing, but did the opposite.

The lawyers should be sanctioned.  The bankruptcy court probably doesn't have time for such issues, but that doesn't change the facts.

Companies can claim to their investors that they make a Profit.  They can then claim they made a loss to the IRS.  Profit and loss have different meanings in each context. 

[Fred93]

She'll just put her boyfriend on the phone.

   In that case it is fraud for sure.

[Fred93]

In this case they lied.  Its not a legal hair when you're on record over and over again saying you do one thing, and then you tell the court that you didn't do that thing, but did the opposite.

Companies can claim to their investors that they make a Profit.  They can then claim they made a loss to the IRS.  Profit and loss have different meanings in each context. 

No.  That's quite different.  The SEC and the IRS have different rules.  You calculate differently for each one, obeying the rules, and get different numbers.  Of course you do, because they have different rules.  Not slightly different, by the way, but thousands and thousands of pages of different rules.

Here the question is not rules.  The question is what they did.  Either they did this thing or they did that thing.  Very simple.

[Gogmagog]

Here the question is not rules.  The question is what they did.  Either they did this thing or they did that thing.  Very simple.

Hey, I'd like to know what their strategy is too.  I'd prefer not to have to respond to a lawsuit if a Borrower ever comes knocking.  However, they won't talk while the case is active, so this is 16+ pages of worthless sound and fury.  Luckily, I enjoy Board-Warrioring in a hurricane environment. 

The best way to get Prosper to respond, is to tell Mr Gaerke to subpoena Prosper's Lender records, and then amend the complaint to include all the Lenders.  Prosper will need to act fast, and publicly, to save their business model. 

NOTE:  On that last part, I am serious.  It is the only way to get Prosper on record, with specifics, in court, and in public, about how their policies work.  Despite what people think, I am not a Prosper Cheerleader.  I simply think you guys are prone to hyperbole, panic, and overreaction.

[GLeaderAccountantsChoice]

Here the question is not rules.  The question is what they did.  Either they did this thing or they did that thing.  Very simple.

The best way to get Prosper to respond, is to tell Mr Gaerke to subpoena Prosper's Lender records, and then amend the complaint to include all the Lenders.  Prosper will need to act fast, and publicly, to save their business model. 

Ummm..... 

[bamalucky]

Prosper will need to act fast, and publicly, to save their business model. 

Prosper has never did this.Why would they start now?

[Gogmagog]

The best way to get Prosper to respond, is to tell Mr Gaerke to subpoena Prosper's Lender records, and then amend the complaint to include all the Lenders.  Prosper will need to act fast, and publicly, to save their business model. 

Ummm..... 

Yes, it seems like it would be harsh if it went all the way...  However...

Prosper would:
1. Fight the subpoena for their records.
2. If they succeeded in quashing the subpoena, it would be because they have to claim THEY are the active party to the loan and not us.
3.  Their claim of "We didn't Lend" would be thrown out, or they would have to remove it.
Or:
1. Fight the subpoena for their records.
2. Failing to quash the subpoena, they would immediately settle.
3. There is no step 3.  Neither Prosper nor their investors can EVER allow us to be named as a party in any lawsuit. 

[Gogmagog]

Prosper will need to act fast, and publicly, to save their business model. 

Prosper has never did this.Why would they start now?

Because the opinion of cranky Internet users and former customers doesn't carry as much weight as a legal opinion.  Also, Prosper only has to wait 3 years to break their ties with their cranky Lenders.  The courts have a longer memory.

[bamalucky]

You seem to thing these "cranky" lenders can't get anything done,but it seems funny that about 5 days after any thread with a problem against Prosper is moved to the lobby ,we start getting action & answers.

ETA: Do you think DF would be blogging about the NAT loans unless he knew org was all over his ass on this? Those loans would be on a dusty shelf.(i think they are anyway) But at least there is an update now.

[Gogmagog]

You seem to thing these "cranky" lenders can't get anything done,but it seems funny that about 5 days after any thread with a problem against Prosper is moved to the lobby ,we start getting action & answers.

You go girl!

[GLeaderAccountantsChoice]

The best way to get Prosper to respond, is to tell Mr Gaerke to subpoena Prosper's Lender records, and then amend the complaint to include all the Lenders.  Prosper will need to act fast, and publicly, to save their business model. 

Ummm..... 

3. There is no step 3.  Neither Prosper nor their investors can EVER allow us to be named as a party in any lawsuit. 

I like this.  PMI is the servicing agent, end of story.  They sure as hell don't want lenders to be named in a lawsuit and/or subpoenaed.  That would be very bad for a myriad of reasons...

[ira01]

I can't think of too many methods of verification, within the cost parameters of small-scale Internet lending, that can verify the difference between spouses in an Internet financial transaction. . . .  I don't condone the Borrower doing an end run around Prosper's one loan per person, but I also can't see a whole lot that Prosper could ever do to prevent it. 

Then you haven't been paying attention here.  The answer is simple -- require borrowers to print out a form (like they already do to fax documents to Prosper) and get it notarized and send it in.  Many people have access to free notaries through their bank, employer, or elsewhere, and for anyone else, it costs about $10.  

Hey Gog, for about the fifth time you have ignored this -- care to comment finally?

[beerbud1]

Gogmagog, if you were on this loan...I wonder if you would feel the same way. I can't for the life of me think that it's okay for the lenders on this loan to take the loss.

This was a clean c promoted by my then group leader. Vetted, proclaimed income at $100k a year or more.

I just can't understand your reasoning for one minute...

[ira01]

This was a clean c promoted by my then group leader. Vetted, proclaimed income at $100k a year or more.

I hadn't realized this was a supposedly vetted group loan -- I wonder if the GL claimed to have spoken with the borrower.

ETA:  Sheesh, I see it was thisguy's group.  That's a shame.  I wonder what he would have to say about all this.  Even though he posted incessently, I liked thisguy, and am on a few of his group's loans.

ETA2:  I just PM'd thisguy with a link to this thread and a request for any info he can shed on this loan.  Who knows if he'll get it, but can't hurt to try.