[Lendvo]

Should they win, they will probably go after the deeper pockets...the other funders. then, knowing Jeremy and his vindictive streak, might go after a couple choice ISOs just to make a point.

Of course, this all depends on them winning this case. what I wonder is....what if Pearl buckles and settles? Will that still be considered a win?

Honestly I doubt Rapid would ever settle this. This case is to make an example to the other stackers out there and finally it looks like a 1st position shop is going to win [if you read the decision I think Rapid has them dead to rights on the UCC claim, but debatable on TI].

For Rapid winning might mean 50%+ of stackers steer clear of their files in most states. In their minds that might be worth millions a year in value.

[Karen37a]

I know certain A paper funders do second positions ( I never saw Rapid do them) and they seemed to be in-house.
Certain funders have done such bad things to people ( again not Rapid ) that they really have no reason to be telling people what is ethical and not ethical.

Tortious interference cannot be used as a weapon to gain an unfair advantage or monopoly on the market, also it must be purposeful and cause actual damaged ( defaults).I have not seen them argue that or
that people will have to assert a "fiduciary obligation" in an unregulated market...the conduct doesn't have to be criminal but just actionable under another tort. ( or unlawful ) and damages associated with the interference.

If no valid legal contract exists and the ability to establish a
business relationship is somewhat murky

( wait until someone goes to nullify if they get pulled into it based on criminal usury)

**companies who place seconds cannot point fingers and try to lock up competition ( 1st position only can really make that challenge )

Doing all of these things takes people down a slippery slope of regulation.And people think they are going to lock up business and be unethical in other ways ( not rapid ).

These things have been going on with Loans for decades thru foreclosure. Although these claims often appear significant, they are
summarily dismissed under prevailing law, as, in most cases,
a lender only had to establish that its conduct was motivated
by “legitimate business purposes” rather than malice or a
“disinterested malevolence.”

And as you see ...some brokers will slide down a slippery slope of forced defaults, debt relief etc. ( recommending bankruptcy ) for $100 referral fee.

Its best for everyone to play nice with each other ...don't know if it can ever be done.

[WestCoastFunding]

Don't start.

[Chambo]

you two at it again? Get a freaking room already

[Karen37a]

LOL I wasnt directing that towards west coast geezus

[mcaguru]

Marcus: the first two and most important rules of investing (or lending for that matter):
(1) the first loss is always the best loss
(2) never use good capital to chase bad

Carl ...Long time no see on here... How are things ....

[Jess]

Rapid is a strong force but lets not forget In 2015, Capital Z acquired Pearl Capital, Capital Z invested approximately $2.8 billion in over 40 transactions when you count the REALIZED gains they may () have a chest of 5 Billion> (maybe more maybe less)? I just don't want anyone thinking that we have a David and Goliath situation...we talking about 2 MEGA FORCES and each can hold their own!

So wrong.....so wrong....so wrong

[Jess]

http://debanked.com/2017/10/stacking...d-go-to-trial/

Did Pearl assert that they were a secured creditor? Wow-this is just like the Ys and EBF suit which asserted they had a "right" to the cash in the merchant's bank account.

[Karen37a]

Did Pearl assert that they were a secured creditor? Wow-this is just like the Ys and EBF suit which asserted they had a "right" to the cash in the merchant's bank account.

Yes they did.

They need to show that they were going to breach with or without the new advance...find mitigating factors ( is the business still open) etc etc etc...stopping payments does not cause bankruptcy. Once the payments stop the business should still stay afloat.

If you find the reason for the original advance or 2. 3rd was lack of money from a diminishing client database...then the cash advances didn't put them under ( or technically the additional fees/ factor rate, because you did get money ) and that the underwriting decision was made based on past data not existing data...not future.

Example ...Mortgages ...2 incomes from husband...1 from the wife.

wife loses the job, the husband gets laid off from 1 job...they then make the assertion that the payment and dollar amount of the loan was too high based on income....

forensics...based on underwriting decision made 10 years ago ( 2 jobs and 1 wife) sound decision.that is how the 2nds could prevail on mortgages and also the investors on the defaults and the swaps and losses the back were supposed to eat.

( tried to force me into being the troll under the stairs writing the forensic reports...not having it, no matter how much they offered)

Battle of the lawyers...will be interesting to see the result

[mcaguru]

So wrong.....so wrong....so wrong

I have no problem being wrong -- just point out exactly how so.... to keep it on point i made a claim that capital Z owns pearl and that they have Billions in holdings and can equally defend themselves.

[Karen37a]

I have no problem being wrong -- just point out exactly how so.... to keep it on point i made a claim that capital Z owns pearl and that they have Billions in holdings and can equally defend themselves.

Marcus,

Maybe its because the other raised 1.2 billion thru an offering for one of their many ventures with a snap of a finger

I am bowing out of the giants going after each other, while I try to fund my piker 60k deal today( still on vacation)

** and thats why I thought raising x millions over a few years was an embarassing(low) number to say.....because of people who raise billions on a friday ...poof / raised

[mcaguru]

Enjoy your vacation! like grandmother always said will rest when we dead....