Just to clear my head. The only case Prosper seems to be successful at winning is where they are recouping the money from loans they bought back.
Shouldn't Prosper be spending that time collecting on some of the money in the +4 default files.
I really don't give a rats azz what Prosper collects or does in their own behalf. What are they doing for me?
Playing Devil's Advocate here for a minute. Legally, Prosper has no obligation per the Lenders' Registration Agreement to sue borrowers on behalf of note holders (formerly known as Lenders). Check your LRA. Also, they are not beholden to you for the (non)-performance of the collection agencies. The only place where Prosper is in breach of its agreements with note holders is where they are failing to sell off the +4 month delinquent loans for pennies on the dollar. A case can even be made that they are contractually within their rights as far as their 100% buy-back on ID theft loans. After all, buy-back happens when Prosper determines that an ID fraud has occurred. If they don't so determine, then it has not occurred, per the ID Theft Guarantee.
When, now, after the fact, I look at the LRA, I realize how little is in there to really protect my rights.
It brings to mind the old story about the tax laws, "What, to the legislature, appears to be a brick wall, is, in fact, a triumph arch for a competent tax attorney." The LRA was never written to protect note holders, but to protect and limit Prosper's liability vis-à-vis note holders.