Results 1 to 25 of 74
-
02-25-2016, 03:11 PM #1
Pearl is suing Rapid to say that Rapid can't sue them for stacking!!
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=7dAvnuZX3UnlLQA2gALrRQ==
-
02-25-2016, 03:22 PM #2
Interesting, wonder how this will play out?
-
02-25-2016, 03:28 PM #3
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- NYC
- Posts
- 197
Does anyone have any popcorn?
Tommy Stein
-
02-25-2016, 03:31 PM #4
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Posts
- 72
Interesting to see how this plays out.
Most banks and lenders (and SBA) have similar "non-stacking" language, yet advance companies don't seem to care to fund behind them.
-
02-25-2016, 03:33 PM #5
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 293
The outcome could be huge.
-
02-25-2016, 03:35 PM #6
- Join Date
- Apr 2015
- Posts
- 297
It would definitely set precedent for future situations. If Rapid wins, lenders all across the board can file suits against all of the stackers which in turn will pretty much destroy the industry as notorious stacking lenders will no longer be able to conduct business.
Interesting indeed.
-
02-25-2016, 03:37 PM #7
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 293
DLA Piper is no joke.
-
02-25-2016, 03:58 PM #8
Pearl is suing Rapid to say that Rapid can't sue them for stacking!!
Very Interesting indeed......this has been a hot topic on this forum for years...curious to see if it goes all the way through to the end or of it settles out of court somehow....
-
02-25-2016, 03:58 PM #9
Do not see how Rapid has a chance here as the agreement is between Rapid and the Merchant, not Rapid and Pearl (or other funders). Rapid cannot make the claim that receivables are being purchased twice, since unlike invoice factoring, the 2 agreement are not purchasing a specific receivable but a percentage of general future sales. Who is to say that Rapid bought 30,000 worth of future sales and Pearl bought a separate 15,000 worth of future sales? Absent of anyones personal thoughts on the concept of "stacking", objectively speaking, I do not see how Rapid has a case.
-
02-25-2016, 04:04 PM #10
I do not think it will go to court. If Rapid wins it would kill Pearl, and if Pearl wins it would weaken many of the 1st position lenders. I think Pearl has some kind of ulterior motive here, besides for going all the way to court. Any thoughts?
-
02-25-2016, 04:05 PM #11
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Location
- NYC
- Posts
- 119
If Rapid is successful it will definitely open the flood gates... to where I do not know
-
02-25-2016, 04:08 PM #12
Dont think Pearl is doing this to be the Robin hood of the 2nd, 3rd, etc.. position funders. Defending themselves and in the process saw this as an opportunity to set precedence with what they think are frivolous claims. They hired the right law firm for it but boy will that be a hefty bill. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/...gal-bill/?_r=0
-
02-25-2016, 04:26 PM #13
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- New York
- Posts
- 162
-
02-25-2016, 04:30 PM #14
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Posts
- 1,746
Pearl can't seem to make up it's mind in UW. They give big approvals and then cut them. Happening a lot lately. One of my merchants had to do a COJ 3 times because of changed approval amounts after UW. If you are CAN, Rapid, underwrite on the back end, fine. But don't be an F paper stacker with mountains of paperwork, 10% junk fees, and then cut approvals. It's bad business.
-
02-25-2016, 04:33 PM #15
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Posts
- 4,713
Its interesting of course. I am personal friends with one of the top lawyers in the country his opinion is the secondary funding market outside of MCA is a half trillion market and no judge is going to interfere and rule against that space.
Just think about it all Lenders in our space have taken many positions onto there own balance sheets to continue funding merchants!! (meaning they stack on original lender with or without the green-light) am i seeing it wrong??Last edited by mcaguru; 02-25-2016 at 04:37 PM.
Marcus Clapman | Business Development | Cresthill Capital
(High Commissions Payout Group)
——————————————————————————
Tel: 917-521-6528 | Fax: 212.671.1473
Email: bizdev@cresthillcapital.com
http://www.cresthillcapital.com
-
02-25-2016, 04:40 PM #16
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- New York
- Posts
- 162
-
02-25-2016, 04:49 PM #17
the pot calling the kettle black
Anthony Diamond
Underwriter
-
02-25-2016, 04:58 PM #18
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
- Posts
- 430
DLA Piper should be embarrassed to have written and filed that motion. The language and arguments are sophomoric and most are predicated upon conjecture. It is also occasionally snide and unprofessional. There are no cites to precedent regarding the points of law being argued to advance the motion. This isn't a serious motion, it is just a strategic move by DLA in an attempt to gain leverage.
To the four independent reasons:
a) Rapid will argue agency. Pearl induces brokers to bring them business.
b) LOL
c) Rapid only needs to prove actual knowledge in one instance to set the precedent. Further, the proximate knowledge alone is pretty damning. All lenders use boilerplate contracts. If Pearl has seen one of Rapid's contracts, they know stacking is verboten.
d) Yes, they can. Rapid isn't unsophisticated. They have data that can demonstrate losses increase when repayment is beyond X% of daily. I'm sure they also have witnesses that will testify Pearl's stack caused default. If their attorneys don't have witnesses lined up, Rapid should be looking for new counsel.
-
02-25-2016, 04:58 PM #19
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 293
Pearl reprices after signed contract when the bank login comes back with **** balances and/or a recent funding. Also if the volume is down month over month. The occasional Rapist/Kidnapper merchant may get a drop in the funding amount. That's not just Pearl. That's pretty much everyone. And Pearl doesn't really fund F paper. Most of the deals fall into the B-D paper. Pearl average fee is 5%, so not sure where you get 10%. I'd be happy to discuss more, FUNd, whenever you have time.
-
02-25-2016, 05:46 PM #20
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
- Posts
- 3,326
-
02-25-2016, 05:47 PM #21
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
- Posts
- 3,326
-
02-25-2016, 05:51 PM #22
Last edited by iso@wallfunding; 09-11-2017 at 10:17 AM.
Wall Funding ISO Team
646-979-2161
partners@wallfunding.com
http://wallfunding.com/
30 Broad St, New York, NY, 10004
-
02-25-2016, 05:53 PM #23
-
02-25-2016, 06:01 PM #24
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 1,780
I like the analogy with a customer applying for multiple credit cards. RapidAdvance will have their hands full. DLA Piper is a heavyweight law firm.
-
02-25-2016, 06:50 PM #25
Similar Threads
-
Rapid Advance
By CannonCap in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 2Last Post: 12-03-2015, 01:58 PM -
SBFS = Rapid or BFS?
By ADiamond in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 3Last Post: 07-02-2015, 02:50 PM -
Rapid Advance Banner Ads
By debtman222 in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 3Last Post: 05-30-2014, 07:44 AM -
Rapid Advance (MD)
By Jared_Weitz in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 12Last Post: 05-21-2014, 06:18 PM -
first national television campaign rapid advance
By CO1 in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 7Last Post: 05-21-2013, 11:56 AM