[AlexSMF]

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.

Not an attorney but how about the fact that the agreements are between funder and merchant, not between funder and funder. Pearl does not have any contractual responsibility to Rapid.

[Chambo]

Not an attorney but how about the fact that the agreements are between funder and merchant, not between funder and funder. Pearl does not have any contractual responsibility to Rapid.

Thus the reasoning behind tortuous interference. IF you knowingly go in and disrupt a bound contract between two parties....