[Karen37a]

If the agreement resembles a loan agreement, but it is not formally designated as such, and the merchants think the cost of capital is too high after taking the money I have found they then go to renegotiate the dollar amount to reduce the cost of capital. After negotiations to reduce the cost fail, they default or they choose the path of litigation

They primarily use 2 major offensive approaches to litigation

1) They sue for misrepresentation on the grounds that they thought they were getting a loan

2)They sue based on the theory that the agreement is, in fact, a loan agreement but is then usurious and therefore unlawful.

There are numerous cases in the court system and it always comes down to the language of the contract that was signed.., cases where merchants went to vacate the COJ based on these theories and others.

The cases came down to a few major things

If the contract states that it is not a loan and it is not ambiguous or misleading they cannot say that they were misled into thinking it was a loan. I've seen courts have dismissed the misrepresentation claim. In spite of this, they still let the case move forward based on Usury Claims under the Rico.t Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.There are numerous other things that come into play in the contracts " reconciliation" " "renewal "evergreen" periods'

There is an "Unconciousabioity" theory in law also "disinterested malevolence" which then will come into play

Bottom line The courts have ruled that if an Advance or a working Capital Agreement Resembles a Loan agreement then it will be treated as such. No matter what it calls itself.

[Ktolbert85]

"Unconscionability" is not a word. Did you mean "Unconscionability"?

[Karen37a]

"Unconscionability" is not a word. Did you mean "Unconscionability"?

There are more typos, please correct them all then come back and I can change them in one full swoop

[SBiz]

If the agreement resembles a loan agreement, but it is not formally designated as such, and the merchants think the cost of capital is too high after taking the money I have found they then go to renegotiate the dollar amount to reduce the cost of capital. After negotiations to reduce the cost fail, they default or they choose the path of litigation

They primarily use 2 major offensive approaches to litigation

1) They sue for misrepresentation on the grounds that they thought they were getting a loan

2)They sue based on the theory that the agreement is, in fact, a loan agreement but is then usurious and therefore unlawful.

There are numerous cases in the court system and it always comes down to the language of the contract that was signed.., cases where merchants went to vacate the COJ based on these theories and others.

The cases came down to a few major things

If the contract states that it is not a loan and it is not ambiguous or misleading they cannot say that they were misled into thinking it was a loan. I've seen courts have dismissed the misrepresentation claim. In spite of this, they still let the case move forward based on Usury Claims under the Rico.t Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.There are numerous other things that come into play in the contracts " reconciliation" " "renewal "evergreen" periods'

There is an "Unconciousabioity" theory in law also "disinterested malevolence" which then will come into play

Bottom line The courts have ruled that if an Advance or a working Capital Agreement Resembles a Loan agreement then it will be treated as such. No matter what it calls itself.

Are you presenting this to get thoughts from other people or are you attempting to provide useful education to the DF Universe?

[Karen37a]

Are you presenting this to get thoughts from other people or are you attempting to provide useful education to the DF Universe?

Both

I have been telling people why regulation is bad for years. People attacking my credibility over it. It's going to devastate people in mca.

What i posted is facts and what i said to the people in Calif regulating

I guess its my hail mary..( football) throwing for the end zone 2 seconds left in the game

[CreditGuy]

People attacking my credibility over it.

Sad. Your posts do enough to impeach your own credibility. People here shouldn't be piling on.

[Karen37a]

Sad. Your posts do enough to impeach your own credibility. People here shouldn't be piling on.

Actually, the posts prove you shouldn't judge people. Someone like me coming out of nowhere and is better than you in every way but was being slightly humble.

Learn to not talk down to people, you never know who they are or what they know.

[CreditGuy]

me...better than you in every way...being slightly humble.

Preserved for posterity.

[Karen37a]

Preserved for posterity.

I know you want a certain agenda to go thru; regulation...without having real experience to know the consequences or just not caring because it doesn't pertain to you or you seek a monetary gain for holding on to that viewpoint or a combination of all.Its very see thru, contrived and lacking moral turpitude; which is hypocritical.

preserved for posterity

[fundingsmbs]

the industry is large enough now for Big Gov and State Reg to step in. And with the fiasco like 1st Global, something is needed in place to protect investor's as well as business owner's from fraud and false disclosures.

[CreditGuy]

I know you want...regulation...without having real experience to know the consequences

I was a federal bank regulator during the financial crisis.

You never know who they are or what they know.

[Karen37a]

I was a federal bank regulator during the financial crisis.

and I can tell when someone is super pro-regulation. And I was a compliance officer/ owner/ salesperson/ insurance /mortgages /investments with 500 brokers


Add ...AND I never had a regulatory issue not even for $ 1 since the 80s


( no matter what those contracts say apr etc...it resembles a loan...so I do not know if people are setting other people up)

if that contract is not formulated correctly from this universal source...they will be the ones at fault for the ambiguity in the language

[Karen37a]

the industry is large enough now for Big Gov and State Reg to step in. And with the fiasco like 1st Global, something is needed in place to protect investor's as well as business owner's from fraud and false disclosures.

BUT you can't legally turn an advance into Loan so the people constructing the contracts and drafting the bills should have more knowledge than "karen37a"

And the money from 1st Global was regulated with the Securities and Exchange commission which is why they stepped in and the fbi

This thing from calif does nothing to help any of these issues

it only advances the agenda of certain people who do loans

[Karen37a]

https://www.americanbanker.com/opini...s-lending-bill


You may contact Governor Edmund G. Brown by mail at:

Mailing address:

Governor Edmund G. Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160


Call to voice your opposition to the bill. you only need to say


1) I oppose this bill because it will cause irreparable harm by creating an environment that causes confusion to the borrowers, rather than more transparency