Need a Funder or Vendor? START HERE

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74
  1. #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==

  2. #2
    Senior Member Reputation points: 32550 Funder Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,437

    Interesting, wonder how this will play out?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Reputation points: 8656
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    197

    Does anyone have any popcorn?
    Tommy Stein

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    The outcome could be huge.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodCustomerService View Post
    The outcome could be huge.
    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.

  7. #7
    DLA Piper is no joke.

  8. #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....

  9. #9
    Senior Member Reputation points: 5034 AlexSMF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    286

    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Reputation points: 32550 Funder Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,437

    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?

  11. #11
    Senior Member Reputation points: 1307
    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

  12. #12
    Senior Member Reputation points: 5034 AlexSMF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    286

    Quote Originally Posted by Funder Mark View Post
    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?
    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

  13. #13
    Sponsor Reputation points: 429
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    162

    Looks Like Pearl is going go to Work on Rapid with a Pair of Pliers and Blow Torch!

    Quote Originally Posted by isaacdstern View Post
    https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=7dAvnuZX3UnlLQA2gALrRQ==

  14. #14
    Senior Member Reputation points: 23702
    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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Reputation points: 54975
    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

  16. #16
    Sponsor Reputation points: 429
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    162

    Send some deals Mantis. we don't play that ****.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUNd View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Reputation points: 50566 ADiamond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    890

    the pot calling the kettle black
    Anthony Diamond
    Underwriter

  18. #18
    Senior Member Reputation points: 16720
    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.

  19. #19
    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.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Reputation points: 301165
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    3,313

    Quote Originally Posted by Mmarano View Post
    Send some deals Mantis. we don't play that ****.
    so are you saying that mantis doesn't kill deals or reprice for stuff known from the beginning ever

  21. #21
    Senior Member Reputation points: 301165
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    3,313

    Quote Originally Posted by GoodCustomerService View Post
    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.
    i agree with you except for the 10% i just looked at 7 contracts and all were 10% in fees

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael I View Post
    i agree with you except for the 10% i just looked at 7 contracts and all were 10% in fees
    If anyone is looking for a high risk funder with minimum fees, you have found the right company.
    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

  23. #23
    Senior Member Reputation points: 5034 AlexSMF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    286

    Quote Originally Posted by CreditGuy View Post
    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.

  24. #24
    Senior Member Reputation points: 99426
    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.

  25. #25
    Veteran Reputation points: 134971 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,174

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexSMF View Post
    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....

Similar Threads

  1. Rapid Advance
    By CannonCap in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-03-2015, 01:58 PM
  2. SBFS = Rapid or BFS?
    By ADiamond in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-02-2015, 02:50 PM
  3. Rapid Advance Banner Ads
    By debtman222 in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-30-2014, 07:44 AM
  4. Rapid Advance (MD)
    By Jared_Weitz in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-21-2014, 06:18 PM
  5. first national television campaign rapid advance
    By CO1 in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-21-2013, 11:56 AM


Posting Permissions

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


INDUSTRY ANNOUNCEMENTS

BoA launches business loan marketplace
Quickbooks adds new LOC product
Dext Capital upsizes corp note


DIRECTORY