Welcome to Prospers.ORG! Login here
My favorite partQuoteAs a result of our prior operations, our lender members who hold these loans may be entitled to rescind their purchase and be paid their unpaid principal amount of the borrower loans plus statutory interest. In addition, As of September 30, 2008, the aggregate principal balance of loans purchased through our platform by purchasers not affiliated with Prosper was $178.6 million.
As a result of our prior operations, our lender members who hold these loans may be entitled to rescind their purchase and be paid their unpaid principal amount of the borrower loans plus statutory interest. In addition, As of September 30, 2008, the aggregate principal balance of loans purchased through our platform by purchasers not affiliated with Prosper was $178.6 million.
Delaware law provides that directors of a corporation will not be personally liable for monetary damages for breaches of their fiduciary duties as directors, except liability for:
OMG! Just over half were able to withstand income verification. That means almost half of the borrowers lie about income. Egad. If that's true, then we need income verification on 100% of loans. Edited to add: Heh heh... This could explain why DTI has been such a poor indicator of loan performance. It is a bogus number on about half of the loans! That would tend to decorrelate your statistics.
This is funnyQuote...We employ techniques such as ...digital fingerprinting to prevent identity fraud.
...We employ techniques such as ...digital fingerprinting to prevent identity fraud.
In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, we granted Edward A. Giedgowd incentive stock options to purchase 40,000 shares of our common stock under our 2005 Plan, at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on the date of grant.
In March 2005, we awarded, for nominal value, an aggregate of 4,000,000 shares of common stock valued at $0.10 per share or $400,000, to our co-founders. 2,000,000 shares were issued to Christian A. Larsen, our Chief Executive Officer, and 2,000,000 shares were issued to John Witchel, our former Secretary and Chief Technology Officer. 1,000,000 shares were immediately vested and the remaining 3,000,000 shares were to vest over 3.5 years for services rendered. The unvested shares were subject to a repurchase agreement if the founders leave Prosper, in which case we could elect to repurchase any unvested shares at the lesser price of $0.10 per share or the fair market value at the date service ceases. As a result of Mr. Witchel’s departure on July 31, 2008, we repurchased the 75,000 unvested shares then held by Mr. Witchel for $7,500, or $0.10 per share. All of Mr. Larsen’s shares were fully vested as of September 30, 2008.
n April 2005, we issued and sold to investors an aggregate of 4,023,999 shares of our Series A convertible preferred stock (“Series A”) at a purchase price of $1.875 per share for an aggregate consideration of $7,464,450, net of issuance costs of $80,550. In February 2006, we issued and sold to investors an aggregate of 3,310,382 shares of our Series B convertible preferred stock (“Series B”) at a purchase price of $3.776 per share for an aggregate consideration of $12,412,301, net of issuance cost of $87,700. In June 2007, we issued and sold to investors an aggregate of 2,063,558 shares of Series C convertible preferred stock (“Series C”) at a purchase price of $9.692 per share for an aggregate consideration of $19,919,009, net of issuance costs of $80,996.
Year ending 2007 they lost $11,875,7542006 loss $6,140,437
The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages, the right of rescission and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Prosper and the other named defendants. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however, the final outcome of this lawsuit is not presently determinable or estimable and there can be no assurance that the matter will be finally resolved in our favor.
The Company granted 2,500 immediately vested common shares at $2.17 per share to nonemployees for services during the year ended December 31, 2007 and 12,294 immediately vested shares at $0.50 per share in 2006. Expense of approximately $5,400 and $6,100 was recognized in 2007 and 2006, respectively
Securities Law Compliance Since our commencement of operation in February 2006 through October 16, 2008, we sold approximately $178.6 million of loans to our lender members through an operating structure that involved our sale and assignment of promissory notes directly to lender members. We did not register the offer and sale of the promissory notes offered and sold through our platform under the Securities Act or under the registration or qualification provisions of state securities laws. In our view, analyzing whether or not the operation of our platform involved an offer or sale of a “security” involved a complicated factual and legal analysis and was uncertain. If the sales of promissory notes offered through our platform were viewed as a securities offering, we would have failed to comply with the registration and qualification requirements of federal and state law and our lender members who hold these promissory notes may be entitled to rescission of unpaid principal, plus statutory interest. Generally, the federal statute of limitations for noncompliance with the requirement to register securities under the Securities Act is one year from the violation, although the statute of limitations period under various state laws may be for a longer period of time. Due to the legal uncertainty regarding the sales of promissory notes offered through our platform under our prior operating structure, and as a result of discussions with the SEC and various state securities law administrators, we decided to restructure our operations to resolve such uncertainty. We began our implementation of this decision on October 16, 2008, when we ceased offering lender members the opportunity to make loan purchases on our platform, ceased accepting new lender members registrations and ceased allowing new loan purchase commitments from existing lender members.
