[Sean Cash]

In my opinion, the takeaway here is the importance of correct contracts! And that Pearl's contract's were not adequate to distinguish the agreement as a purchase of receivables as opposed to a loan. Reading that it appeared that the court ruled against Pearl due to verbiage lacking as well as illegible small font. Had they had better contracts, the court would not have ruled against them.

"the Agreement provided for Court review is illegible," the judge said.

So a lot went off of the witness testimony and what the funder's attorney said, of which if you read through everything in this case, they didn't really know what they were talking about.

By the way this was the old pearl, not the new pearl.

[staten]

"the Agreement provided for Court review is illegible," the judge said.

So a lot went off of the witness testimony and what the funder's attorney said, of which if you read through everything in this case, they didn't really know what they were talking about.

By the way this was the old pearl, not the new pearl.

Are any Pearl contracts enforcible?

[NoBigDeal]

Are any Pearl contracts enforcible?

Specifically Pearl or any contract in the MCA space?

[Sean Cash]

Are any Pearl contracts enforcible?

They probably are. The entirety of the contract itself was not really ruled on since it was illegible. Of course, everyone should speak with their contract lawyers and/or their litigators about this case for further clarity and real legal expertise. I'm not an attorney.