Print

[Fred93]

Fred93 has been getting hyper lately, and has updated his blog twice in one month!  Woo hoo!.

http://www.prospers.org/blogs/Fred93/2008/08/03/prosper_com_lender_statements_6_months_l
This blog message is about the "supplemental statements" that Prosper promised us on the "legal test" loans, but has never produced. 

Sheesh!

[bamalucky]

You can't expect Prosper to honor it's word on something promised in 2008.After all,theres tons of promises from 2006 we are still waiting on.

Remember the promise that lenders with late loans would have their lending money taken to repay their own loans?

Come on man,theres 2 years of promises ahead of this one.You will just have to wait your turn. 

[ira01]

Fred93 has been getting hyper lately, and has updated his blog twice in one month!  Woo hoo!.

http://www.prospers.org/blogs/Fred93/2008/08/03/prosper_com_lender_statements_6_months_l
This blog message is about the "supplemental statements" that Prosper promised us on the "legal test" loans, but has never produced. 

You forgot to mention in your blog article that we now know of 4 or 5 NAT lawsuits (out of the 50 or so we have details about) that have been dismissed by Prosper.  We know that one of those was dismissed because the borrower filed BK (although a stay, rather than a dismissal, would have been the correct move), but what about the other 3 or 4?  I want to know if Prosper is dismissing cases because the defendants prove/assert that the loan was not theirs, which would trigger Prosper's duty to repurchase the loans for full principal value.

[Fred93]

You forgot to mention in your blog article that we now know of 4 or 5 NAT lawsuits (out of the 50 or so we have details about) that have been dismissed by Prosper.  We know that one of those was dismissed because the borrower filed BK ..but what about the other 3 or 4?  I want to know if Prosper is dismissing cases because the defendants prove/assert that the loan was not theirs, which would trigger Prosper's duty to repurchase the loans for full principal value.

I was thinking that subject deserved its own writeup.  I'm not sufficiently up to date on the various suits to write up the status just now.  Has someone been keeping the wiki pages up to date with stuff we know from PACER etc, or do I have to leaf thru messages?

[ira01]

You forgot to mention in your blog article that we now know of 4 or 5 NAT lawsuits (out of the 50 or so we have details about) that have been dismissed by Prosper.  We know that one of those was dismissed because the borrower filed BK ..but what about the other 3 or 4?  I want to know if Prosper is dismissing cases because the defendants prove/assert that the loan was not theirs, which would trigger Prosper's duty to repurchase the loans for full principal value.

I was thinking that subject deserved its own writeup.  I'm not sufficiently up to date on the various suits to write up the status just now.  Has someone been keeping the wiki pages up to date with stuff we know from PACER etc, or do I have to leaf thru messages?

The Wiki page for the NAT loans appears to be up to date (except I thought there were 5 dismissed cases, but now I can only find 4 -- maybe I was mistaken about there being 5).  Two of the 4 are in BK; 2 aren't.