[dailyfunderppt]

Is this the result of the wording in their contracts itself that caused this shake up?

[abfunders]

Is this the result of the wording in their contracts itself that caused this shake up?

This is honestly old news from 2020. The question is only if the reconciliation clause was truly honored. Top of page 46, and onwards from point 126. It appears that their main push is that they were using "what fixed daily can they afford?" to underwrite the files (point 142) and the "Specified Percentage" was an estimate and nobody bothered to actually hone in on that. The question remains, if the merchant can send in statements and can reconcile later, what's the problem? The AG has to prove that the defendants acted in bad faith.

I don't follow number 158. No funder is obligated to underwrite in a way that the AG says that they must. The AG claims that higher amounts automatically means lower specified percentage. No, it's my investment/purchase, I don't want to buy $150k for $100k if it's going to take me a few years to collect it. Specified Percentage is a reverse calculation, and the AG wants underwriters to think like her, otherwise it's a loan? Very shaky here.

I'm skimming through most of it, but it does appear that most of the rest from 169 and onwards is that Yellowstone/Delta Bridge did very little

The AG is also worried that reconciliation demands refunds. If they took a ceiling of 15% of the daily, and really it was 25%, then they should send back the other 10%.


---

From page 178 is gets interesting:
FRAUD with merchants.

On page 189, #519, if true, is again, a big problem. These are VERY OLD stories, though, if they cleaned up their act or not? You have to check with them.

Then Page 183 is SUPER INTERESTING: Bait and switch! The AG is suing Yellowstone for the promises of lines of credit by brokers, and not enough safeguards or oversight.

---

BTW, a ton of this stuff complaints about Jon Braun and Steve Davis who have long left the company, and after the rebranding and changing habits and reforms, the AG won't let them off the hook. "You're the same Yellowstone, just an extension." Suing them under a statute of limitations clause. That opens up a HUGE can of worms, not sure how to think about that one. Close shop and never do business again because one of your employees that you fired was a fraud?

[JustInCase]

[whiterabbit]

Is this the result of the wording in their contracts itself that caused this shake up?

It looks like it has more to do with the fact that they didn’t ever really reconciliate even when the merchant asked them to do so. That they added the clause in the contract but never had any intentions of actually purchasing the receivables at a specified percentage, but rather daily fix payments. They mention from multiple witnesses in the company that the % was just made up number and that the daily fixed payments were all they cared about,