Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 179
  1. #76
    Senior Member Reputation points: 112611
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,892

    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.
    Micah Markowitz | mmarkowitz@abfunders.com | 855-33-GO-ABF (direct)

  2. #77
    Senior Member Reputation points: 196003
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Nunya
    Posts
    802

    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastFunding View Post
    Man, so that means Par isn’t able to make reverse consolidation deposits to the merchants to cover the merchants’ MCA debt?
    Domino effect...

  3. #78
    Senior Member Reputation points: 195877
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,257

    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastFunding View Post
    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

  4. #79
    Senior Member Reputation points: 39871 ADiamond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    821

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan $ View Post
    The entire fucking thing is Bullshit.

    They are trying to call Debt, Securities.

    And, are causing exactly what they claim to be stopping.

    Ummmmm... aren't debt bonds, securities?
    Anthony Diamond
    Underwriter

  5. #80
    Senior Member Reputation points: 59625
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    301

    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!!!

  6. #81
    Veteran Reputation points: 120232 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,122

    Quote Originally Posted by pcfunder View Post
    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!

  7. #82
    Senior Member Reputation points: 146501 ryan $'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,659

    Quote Originally Posted by ADiamond View Post
    Ummmmm... aren't debt bonds, securities?
    There is no Maturity Date - so it can't be a debt bond. Syndication ends when the advance does, and as we all know MCA's have no set term......

    ANd around and around we go

  8. #83
    Veteran Reputation points: 120232 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,122

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan $ View Post
    There is no Maturity Date - so it can't be a debt bond. Syndication ends when the advance does, and as we all know MCA's have no set term......

    ANd around and around we go
    Unfortunately, the SEC disagrees with you on this one....they have just a wee bit more clout

  9. #84
    Anybody who doesn't think Par is 100% done and that people are going to jail is either naive, uninformed, or wasn't around to watch this exact same situation play out with 1st Global. This is not going to end well for Par.

  10. #85
    Senior Member Reputation points: 57031
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    383

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

  11. #86
    Veteran Reputation points: 120232 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,122

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Dolla View Post
    The first thing Par will try to do is ach all their missed daily
    payments all at once
    Aren't their accounts all frozen?

  12. #87
    Senior Member Reputation points: 88164
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    711

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

  13. #88
    Senior Member Reputation points: 245177
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Boynton Beach, FL
    Posts
    2,762

    Quote Originally Posted by Chambo View Post
    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.
    Seacoast Business Funding, a division of Seacoast Bank
    Kevin Henry-VP Business Development
    Kevin.Henry@SeacoastBF.com
    561-623-1872
    www.seacoastbf.com
    Boynton Beach, FL

  14. #89
    Senior Member Reputation points: 146501 ryan $'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,659

    Quote Originally Posted by StealMyDeal View Post
    Anybody who doesn't think Par is 100% done and that people are going to jail is either naive, uninformed, or wasn't around to watch this exact same situation play out with 1st Global. This is not going to end well for Par.
    1st Global was STEALING money, spending on themselves (CEO) - as far as I can tell par isnt being accuesed of this - They pay a return on the money..

  15. #90
    Senior Member Reputation points: 195877
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,257

    Quote Originally Posted by RickyR3712 View Post
    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

  16. #91
    Senior Member Reputation points: 7860
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Designer
    Posts
    422

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan $ View Post
    1st Global was STEALING money, spending on themselves (CEO) - as far as I can tell par isnt being accuesed of this - They pay a return on the money..


    Unfortunately, there are additional "alleged" accusations to that effect.

  17. #92
    Senior Member Reputation points: 7679
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    189

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

  18. #93
    Senior Member Reputation points: 14293
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    754

    Indictments to follow

  19. #94

  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by ryan $ View Post
    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.

  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Sachip24 View Post
    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.

  22. #97
    Senior Member Reputation points: 69310
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    444

    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?

  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by PAR View Post
    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.
    How nice of you to rejoin us.

    No comments on the point I just made? Only addressing the comparison between 1st Global? I think the SEC mentioned that you guys defaulted on those promissory notes to investors too. But keep pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes. I don’t think you guys have a defense since you blatantly lied to investors to induce them to invest. That falls squarely within the parameters of securities fraud.

  24. #99
    Senior Member Reputation points: 7679
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    189

    Securities fraud with 1200 victims/witnesses should be a slam dunk. We shall see.

    I wonder if anyone involved has or is running to cut a deal with the feds now.
    Last edited by Shorebird; 08-09-2020 at 07:26 PM.

  25. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by SmartestGuyInTheRoom View Post
    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....
    Last edited by UrsulaHaun; 08-09-2020 at 11:15 PM.



Posting Permissions

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