[Chambo]

So true

Also didn’t all of this start because the old owners of Pearl were pissed off at Yellowstone for making more money than them so they purposely gave Bloomberg the information they needed to make those articles they released awhile ago? Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s what I heard which is so insane if its true.

Not quite like that, but yeah, the Pearl/Yellowstone "conflict" has definitely added an accelerant

[backofficevet]

So true

Also didn’t all of this start because the old owners of Pearl were pissed off at Yellowstone for making more money than them so they purposely gave Bloomberg the information they needed to make those articles they released awhile ago? Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s what I heard which is so insane if its true.

Without going into detail I can confirm this is exactly what happened.

[Yankeeman07]

Par Receivership Web Site

http://parfundingreceivership.com/

[SmartAdvanced]

Par Receivership Web Site

http://parfundingreceivership.com/

What a complete and utter mess.

[Steven_O]

...this is all really sounding movie'ish...

[WestCoastFunding]

Man, so that means Par isn’t able to make reverse consolidation deposits to the merchants to cover the merchants’ MCA debt?

[Nunya]

Man, so that means Par isn’t able to make reverse consolidation deposits to the merchants to cover the merchants’ MCA debt?

Domino effect...

[Sachip24]

Man, so that means Par isn’t able to make reverse consolidation deposits to the merchants to cover the merchants’ MCA debt?

Correct, no weekly deposits on their reverses currently or debits and no one is in the office to pick up the phone so merchants have no clue wtf is going on. I have feeling this is going to cause a huge mess for anyone currently with Par in their reverses or mca's or have Par in statements and looking for money elsewhere since no one knows how it will play out underwriting a file with Par in statements currently is very gray area

[abfunders]

Hey WCF, what happened to you, where ya been? I was getting worried. We've had lots of action in the last few weeks. Par, AFM ("Slim and Izzy Show"), Dave, SBA discussions, etc etc etc.

[pcfunder]

Hey man Par like totally replied to this thread saying how they are at the top of their game and that like really got me excited!! I totally believe that Par will get out of this legal trouble ASAP! Actually, I'm pretty sure Par is going to individually karate chop every government employee in the face and walk out of the office buildings with a bag of 500 million to fund our merchants and pay us aw3s0me commission on!!!

[Chambo]

Hey man Par like totally replied to this thread saying how they are at the top of their game and that like really got me excited!! I totally believe that Par will get out of this legal trouble ASAP! Actually, I'm pretty sure Par is going to individually karate chop every government employee in the face and walk out of the office buildings with a bag of 500 million to fund our merchants and pay us aw3s0me commission on!!!

heh.....whatever you are on man, pass it around!

[Don Dolla]

The first thing Par will try to do is ach all their missed daily
payments all at once

[Chambo]

The first thing Par will try to do is ach all their missed daily
payments all at once

Aren't their accounts all frozen?

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

Aren't their accounts all frozen?

Frozen or switched to accounts controlled by a court appointed trustee. Since this is the court system, it would be wise not to toy around with the cash in control of the trustee or due the company controlled by the trustee. That is a quick trip to jail.

[RickyR3712]

Is roc funding?I think we can finally know if they are the same or different companies.

[Sachip24]

Is roc funding?I think we can finally know if they are the same or different companies.

good point. havn't seen them chime in this thread since it happened or any other for that matter

[PAR]

good point. havn't seen them chime in this thread since it happened or any other for that matter

We have not chimes in because we spend our time working on things and not lurking. For the comments comparing us to 1st Global, just stop. Please do not compare us to 1st Global because the situation is NOT similar. We’ve been paying our investors and we’ve remained legitimate throughout. There’s millions of dollars in ACH’s daily, millions in RTR. For people asking where all these funds are...... it should be self-exploratory. This is strictly a witch hunt.

[SmartAdvanced]

Why y’all keeping illegal weapons in y’all houses, the day the FBI busts in?

When the witch is on her hunt, you probably don’t wanna feed her living meat, right?

[Shorebird]

It is a massive securities fraud case. I am curious what is going to happen after the SEC/FBI goes through the books.

[golf2014]

Indictments to follow

[ryan $]

What was that now?????

https://debanked.com/2020/08/the-sec...he-real-loser/

[SmartestGuyInTheRoom]

What was that now?????

https://debanked.com/2020/08/the-sec...he-real-loser/

I think you're missing the crux of the SEC's case. The fundamental point they are making is that pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, it is unlawful to obtain money by means of any untrue statement.

Par allegedly told investors that their default rate was 1% and they used it in marketing materials, in person presentations and via email according to the complaint. They also had $300M in litigation. For this to be true, mathematically, they would've needed to fund $30 billion. Given the $600M they consistently claimed they funded, 1% is only $6M in defaults. Lets say their factor rate is 1.5, 1% of $900M is only $9M in defaults. The SEC's case seems pretty rock solid.

[UrsulaHaun]

I think you're missing the crux of the SEC's case. The fundamental point they are making is that pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, it is unlawful to obtain money by means of any untrue statement.

Par allegedly told investors that their default rate was 1% and they used it in marketing materials, in person presentations and via email according to the complaint. They also had $300M in litigation. For this to be true, mathematically, they would've needed to fund $30 billion. Given the $600M they consistently claimed they funded, 1% is only $6M in defaults. Lets say their factor rate is 1.5, 1% of $900M is only $9M in defaults. The SEC's case seems pretty rock solid.

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....

[SmartAdvanced]

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.

[SmartestGuyInTheRoom]

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.