[JayBallentine]

[QUOTE=Lendini;12504][QUOTE=JayBallentine;12502]Interesting... I'm seeing more and more sites reference "technology" when there really is none. I guess companies are seeing the value in ease and speed, so if you don't actually make it easier and faster, you should pretend I suppose...[/QUOTE

Never said the word "fake."


WWW.BUILTWITH.COM

PUT IN THE FOLLOWING SITES:

1. Yours.
2. Ours.
3. Fundera.
4. Others in fintech.

Point being. You're using the Lavarel MVC framework... Which runs on PHP. That's kind of concerning because the Lavarel framework has a vulnerability which allows attackers to impersonate user sessions via modified cookies. In short, if I was a scumbag, I could bring it down without even trying. Moreover, it's marketed to "artisan coders." Not sure if it was designed for commercially viable enterprise web offerings.

I also assumed there was no tech because there is no SSL... or any other security credentials... Didn't think that if there was stuff under the hood, you'd expose yourself this way... I'm wrong I guess.

[Lendini]

Thanks for the breakdown Jay, we'll definitely look into it.

As far as under the hood, the technology has to do with our automated decision making process and with minimal back-end stips, electronic signing and full API integration gives us the ability to fund fast.

[J.Celifarco]

I hear a lot about people being taken to court for stacking. If anyone would know, I am guessing you would Sean; Has anyone, Stacker or Stackee, been taken to court by a Lender who has won a judgment against them? Monetary or an injunction?

yes. many times.. 1 bank in particular has sued many times for tortious interference and has won. I also know of at least 1 other case that is in court now. I have to agree with Sean on this one. If you are a stacker I hope you have plenty of cash reserve because there is a good chance you will end up in court sooner rather then later

[Al1]

yes. many times.. 1 bank in particular has sued many times for tortious interference and has won. I also know of at least 1 other case that is in court now. I have to agree with Sean on this one. If you are a stacker I hope you have plenty of cash reserve because there is a good chance you will end up in court sooner rather then later

Could you please share the case information or the name of the bank that's suing? It's public information if they'd filed a lawsuit so I wouldn't think they'd have a problem and I would guess they would want others to know they won't be stacked on.

I keep hearing about all these suits but I've yet to see particulars. Sending out demand letters is not the same thing as filing a compliant in court.

[JSL23]

yes. many times.. 1 bank in particular has sued many times for tortious interference and has won. I also know of at least 1 other case that is in court now. I have to agree with Sean on this one. If you are a stacker I hope you have plenty of cash reserve because there is a good chance you will end up in court sooner rather then later

I'm not a Stacker(personally). I have brokered 2nd position deals, but usually stick to firsts....I was seriously just wondering if a lawsuit has actually gone to trial and what the outcome was. Does this bank take the Funder who stacked AND the Merchant to court? What type of defense was used against the tortious interference complaint?

[Chambo]

I'm not a Stacker(personally). I have brokered 2nd position deals, but usually stick to firsts....I was seriously just wondering if a lawsuit has actually gone to trial and what the outcome was. Does this bank take the Funder who stacked AND the Merchant to court? What type of defense was used against the tortious interference complaint?

I guess they could go after both, but it would make sense to go after the funding company (deeper pockets). Plus, the company doesn't want all the bad press.

I guess you have to have a lot of CASH & CAPITAL, even if you are a MERCHANT (hint, hint, hint) to go through with these lawsuits and filings

[jaynyone]

jaynyone- Okay he has a $100k balance on what terms? UW are going to look at the % taken out to determine another loan. On top of that- Yes, it matters the monthly gross, but what about his balances? NSF? If he takes another $50k the term will be shorter and expensive and exceed what any lender is comfortable giving. Also- you just completely put yourself out there to QS.

What mostly everyone doesn't understand is the longer the term the less money the lender or the person/people/company that are giving these lenders the money to lend make. MONEY COSTS MONEY- even to the funders. The terms are short RISK=PRICE (obvious) BUT they only go up to certain % on the stack. Example- Seconds they won't go over X% of monthly gross.

This guy has avg balances in the thousands even after the daily payments to QS. They seem to have good pricing over there though - not the first deal I've lost because of their rates.

[JSL23]

I guess they could go after both, but it would make sense to go after the funding company (deeper pockets). Plus, the company doesn't want all the bad press.

I guess you have to have a lot of CASH & CAPITAL, even if you are a MERCHANT (hint, hint, hint) to go through with these lawsuits and filings

LOL, understood. I do wonder what type of defense they used when sued? It would be a public document if there was some type of precedent set for stacking.....hmmm

[Sean Cash]

LOL, understood. I do wonder what type of defense they used when sued? It would be a public document if there was some type of precedent set for stacking.....hmmm

I don't think there is a defense. Some are summary judgment without the stacker even presenting anything. Others go the settlement route. The stackers tend to throw money at it to make it go away and then make a conscious decision not to stack on that particular funder again going forward.

We've had funders come on here with a reputation for stacking specifically name other funders that they won't stack on. It's not just because they respect them, it's because they don't want to get blown up by them.

For those asking me to point them to public court documents, it's not really my place to do that. If a funder wants to share them with the world they can. There are many states in the country to file and more than a thousand funders in the industry. They're not easy to find.

My point is this. If you're running around out there with a hotmail account telling people you do 5th positions, you're a time bomb. If you couldn't afford a lawyer to draft up a contract so you just copied and pasted someone else's, you're a time bomb. And if you're funding under those circumstances anyway and doing it with borrowed money, you're an atom bomb.

If you can't afford a real lawyer, you should not be a funder period.

[jbrown]

I don't think there is a defense. Some are summary judgment without the stacker even presenting anything. Others go the settlement route. The stackers tend to throw money at it to make it go away and then make a conscious decision not to stack on that particular funder again going forward.

We've had funders come on here with a reputation for stacking specifically name other funders that they won't stack on. It's not just because they respect them, it's because they don't want to get blown up by them.

For those asking me to point them to public court documents, it's not really my place to do that. If a funder wants to share them with the world they can. There are many states in the country to file and more than a thousand funders in the industry. They're not easy to find.

My point is this. If you're running around out there with a hotmail account telling people you do 5th positions, you're a time bomb. If you couldn't afford a lawyer to draft up a contract so you just copied and pasted someone else's, you're a time bomb. And if you're funding under those circumstances anyway and doing it with borrowed money, you're an atom bomb.

If you can't afford a real lawyer, you should not be a funder period.

GREAT advice, Sean

[J.Celifarco]

I don't think there is a defense. Some are summary judgment without the stacker even presenting anything. Others go the settlement route. The stackers tend to throw money at it to make it go away and then make a conscious decision not to stack on that particular funder again going forward.

We've had funders come on here with a reputation for stacking specifically name other funders that they won't stack on. It's not just because they respect them, it's because they don't want to get blown up by them.

For those asking me to point them to public court documents, it's not really my place to do that. If a funder wants to share them with the world they can. There are many states in the country to file and more than a thousand funders in the industry. They're not easy to find.

My point is this. If you're running around out there with a hotmail account telling people you do 5th positions, you're a time bomb. If you couldn't afford a lawyer to draft up a contract so you just copied and pasted someone else's, you're a time bomb. And if you're funding under those circumstances anyway and doing it with borrowed money, you're an atom bomb.

If you can't afford a real lawyer, you should not be a funder period.

Preach brother!!!!!

[Chambo]

LOL, understood. I do wonder what type of defense they used when sued? It would be a public document if there was some type of precedent set for stacking.....hmmm

Go to E Courts....under NY State, then type in the company.