[Karen37a]

@Karen37a - I don't believe tortious interference was ever the issue raised.. well at least never literally.

It's basically saying something similar though - The merchant sold me future receivables, I had them secured first before anyone, therefore we are going to collect before anyone. And any monies you have collected - they are owed to us because of this fact.

I understand how the two concepts are related, but it T.I. surprisingly was never brought into the argument.

Thats what it is ...they will be asserting the 1st position on uccs...1st lien and it looks bad to me because they tossed a bank in there

[Nunya]

it looks bad to me because they tossed a bank in there

Genuinely curious as to why you think that looks bad.

[Karen37a]

Genuinely curious as to why you think that looks bad.

Because it looks like you are reaching for straws...toss everyone in and the kitchen sink...which takes away from the argument of a direct specific tortious interference that caused the initial breach or the initial money to be lost...not an ongoing ponzi pay yourself scheme

it makes the merchant look like a giant con artist and not the funders fault

( in my eyes)