Need a Funder or Vendor? START HERE

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 179
  1. #101
    Senior Member Reputation points: 97075
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    754

    Quote Originally Posted by UrsulaHaun View Post
    Par's attorneys told the judge that Par's default rate on a "cash-on-cash" basis was indeed 1.2%. This is going to be one heck of a show. If the basis for the lawsuit and asset freeze was the alleged misrepresentation of the default rate and that turns out to be the actual default rate, (under that methodology anyway), then....
    Then they’ll say sorry, and unfreeze the accounts.

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsulaHaun View Post
    Par's attorneys told the judge that Par's default rate on a "cash-on-cash" basis was indeed 1.2%. This is going to be one heck of a show. If the basis for the lawsuit and asset freeze was the alleged misrepresentation of the default rate and that turns out to be the actual default rate, (under that methodology anyway), then....
    "And the merchant default rates are excellent. Put simply, the merchant cash over cash default exposure is 1.2%. That means that of all merchants receiving $100 in cash from CBSG, only $1.20 (1.2%) is defaulted on."

    That also means that their default rate over the RTR is less than 1% since they are using the funded amount. Their math doesn't make sense. With $300M in litigation. I call bull **** and anyone that believes that is delusional.

    Not to mention they only included one paragraph about their default rates and no mention whatsoever about the insurance they presumably offered.
    Last edited by SmartestGuyInTheRoom; 08-10-2020 at 09:16 AM.

  3. #103
    Senior Member Reputation points: 301165
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    3,313

    Quote Originally Posted by UrsulaHaun View Post
    Par's attorneys told the judge that Par's default rate on a "cash-on-cash" basis was indeed 1.2%. This is going to be one heck of a show. If the basis for the lawsuit and asset freeze was the alleged misrepresentation of the default rate and that turns out to be the actual default rate, (under that methodology anyway), then....
    does that mean that within 90 days there needs to be zero collected not even one dollar to be called a default? sort of why on deck had people paying $5 a month

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael I View Post
    does that mean that within 90 days there needs to be zero collected not even one dollar to be called a default? sort of why on deck had people paying $5 a month
    According to Joseph Cole's deposition "The mechanism for default is not making good on payments as arranged under the agreement."

  5. #105
    Senior Member Reputation points: 97075
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    754

    Actually if they kept 99% of their cash, monthly, with the daily debits and renewals, why can’t this be true?
    Basically it means they’re not loosing cash, which might be true no?

  6. #106
    Senior Member Reputation points: 18402
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    781

    99.9 percent the fed case is not flawed

  7. #107

  8. #108
    Senior Member Reputation points: 4367
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    122

    Quote Originally Posted by SmartestGuyInTheRoom View Post
    "And the merchant default rates are excellent. Put simply, the merchant cash over cash default exposure is 1.2%. That means that of all merchants receiving $100 in cash from CBSG, only $1.20 (1.2%) is defaulted on."

    That also means that their default rate over the RTR is less than 1% since they are using the funded amount. Their math doesn't make sense. With $300M in litigation. I call bull **** and anyone that believes that is delusional.

    Not to mention they only included one paragraph about their default rates and no mention whatsoever about the insurance they presumably offered.
    this guy gets it

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by SmartAdvanced View Post
    Actually if they kept 99% of their cash, monthly, with the daily debits and renewals, why can’t this be true?
    Basically it means they’re not loosing cash, which might be true no?
    So their default rate is lower than banks? Makes perfect sense. Liquidating my 401K and writing Par a check.

  10. #110
    Senior Member Reputation points: 203054
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,361


  11. #111
    Bump.

    With 1% default rates, Covid shouldn't have killed them, but Par was insolvent in April.
    http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...stors-Mca.html

    Not looking good.
    https://www.inquirer.com/news/par-fu...-20200811.html

  12. #112
    Senior Member Reputation points: 14389
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    336

    Damn! The letter was intense. I still can't figure out who Jimmy was? Everyone is f@cked in this deal.

    I always thought that guys at Par were brilliant but now it appears it was all retiree's money they were living off of.

    I wonder now if Par ever turned a profit? Doesn't appear so.
    Last edited by Shorebird; 08-12-2020 at 08:19 PM.

  13. #113
    Senior Member Reputation points: 76187
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    508

    Quote Originally Posted by SmartestGuyInTheRoom View Post
    Bump.

    With 1% default rates, Covid shouldn't have killed them, but Par was insolvent in April.
    http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...stors-Mca.html

    Not looking good.
    https://www.inquirer.com/news/par-fu...-20200811.html
    Man what a loser. “I’m sorry to say that coronavirus has caused us to go bankrupt... but GOOD NEWS! If you give me more money I will be profitable again!”. 3 months later gets arrested with multiple illegal guns, plans to leave the country and hide on a small island, millions in him and his wife's bank accounts, multiple houses and cars, and multiple threats to his own merchants about how he’s going to kill them if they bounce on one payment.

  14. #114
    Senior Member Reputation points: 57713
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    397

    Quote Originally Posted by pcfunder View Post
    Man what a loser. “I’m sorry to say that coronavirus has caused us to go bankrupt... but GOOD NEWS! If you give me more money I will be profitable again!”. 3 months later gets arrested with multiple illegal guns, plans to leave the country and hide on a small island, millions in him and his wife's bank accounts, multiple houses and cars, and multiple threats to his own merchants about how he’s going to kill them if they bounce on one payment.
    pcfunder federal

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by SmartestGuyInTheRoom View Post
    Bump.

    With 1% default rates, Covid shouldn't have killed them, but Par was insolvent in April.
    http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...stors-Mca.html

    Not looking good.
    https://www.inquirer.com/news/par-fu...-20200811.html
    What's crazy is that broker-dealer was fined $500k by the SEC for something completely unrelated two months later.

    https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticl...0#.XzSQQBNKjs0

    https://www.sec.gov/enforce/33-10802-s

  16. #116
    PAR is done. Gone. Finito. No mas. Adios amigos. The SEC keeps winning in court. The federal charges against Laforte (who everyone knows was running the show with his wife's name on everything because he's a felon with a list of creditors from long island NY to long beach CA) are going to stick. He's looking at 2-4 on the gun charges and the gov't may push for more. My bet is he does more time on the "felon in possession of a firearm" charge than he did for the whole mortgage scam. The SEC's receiver fired everyone and hired a liquidation firm (DSI). PAR's employees will be given the opportunity to interview for their old jobs but it would behoove them to seek employment elsewhere. Even if by some miracle the florida court tosses the case, they are so far gone it will be impossible for them to continue business as usual. How are they going to raise capital after this? No more free steak dinners by their pitchmen. It's very likely, based on laforte's history and family ties, that this becomes a huge criminal matter. Court docs said there are multiple criminal investigations by IRS, FBI, FDIC.

  17. #117
    Senior Member Reputation points: 301165
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    3,313

    Quote Originally Posted by Shorebird View Post
    Damn! The letter was intense. I still can't figure out who Jimmy was?
    same question. he always claimed he was the owner

  18. #118

  19. #119
    I'm hearing PAR is done as well.......only time will tell.

  20. #120
    Senior Member Reputation points: 203054
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,361

    whoever got funded by them recently made out like bandits especially if it was large amount

  21. #121
    maybe, maybe not. the receiver will eventually make collection efforts and enforce contract. but he won't be sending gino, jimmy, tony, and vinny to threaten spouses and children and probably won't be as aggressive in court. They won't be paying Fox Rothschild to litigate around country.

  22. #122
    Does anyone remember, how did the receiver handled outstanding contract when they shut down 1st Global last year?

  23. #123
    Member Reputation points: 308
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale
    Posts
    56

    Same receiver from 1st Global as the one that that was appointed by the court on PAR .
    Jake Strelzik
    305- 785-2548

  24. #124
    Senior Member Reputation points: 57713
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    397

    Quote Originally Posted by Sachip24 View Post
    whoever got funded by them recently made out like bandits especially if it was large amount
    And the brokers who had commissions pending surely got screwed... they weren't great at paying commissions in fair weather

  25. #125
    Senior Member Reputation points: 97075
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    754

    I keep thinking how mind boggling this whole Par thing is. Imagine the operators spent millions of dollars in legal fees what is the biggest law firms, and got unlimited reassurance from Top Top lawyers that nothing will ever ever happen to them.

    All these so called “professional experts” on SEC matters were so dead ass wrong. What do you know? The SEC seizes and freezes their asses like a club lion jumps on a freshly killed zebra.

    What about all those millions spent on legal advice with the Top of the Top lawyers that “specialize” In these types of matters!?

    My solution is as follows: arrest and freeze every single attorney and firm that scams it’s clients. If your legal advice is faulty, why be allowed to charge????

    Why are lawyers allowed to scam their clients? Where is the government? FTC? SEC? FBI? CIA?

    I don’t get it. How many folks have been scammed by “top lawyers” who milk and bilk you out of millions!



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


INDUSTRY ANNOUNCEMENTS

BoA launches business loan marketplace
Quickbooks adds new LOC product
Dext Capital upsizes corp note


DIRECTORY