[Sean Cash]

Hey everyone-

As I recall, there were some stacking lawsuits (e.g. Rapid Advance) that got filed this year for tortuous interference when one lenders stacked on another when a no-stacking UCC had been filed.

Any updates/insights on those lawsuits?

Rapid withdrew the one suit they had against another funder in Delaware after it became likely that they could not meet the bar to prove tortious interference in the circumstances presented.

I believe that Dealstruck's lawsuit against other funders for stacking was also not successful

[jbrown]

Rapid withdrew the one suit they had against another funder in Delaware after it became likely that they could not meet the bar to prove tortious interference in the circumstances presented.

I believe that Dealstruck's lawsuit against other funders for stacking was also not successful

To clarify Sean's comments, we withdrew one of our stacking lawsuits because we could not get the documentation necessary to prove the impact of the stacking loans on the merchant's cash flow. The merchant was out of business and gone, we believe because of the stacker's actions, and we couldn't get bank statements etc. necessary to move forward.

We have another case moving forward against Pearl in Maryland. The court's opinion, in denying Pearl's motion to dismiss, was supportive of our claim and that tortious interference is a valid course of action.

[J.Celifarco]

To clarify Sean's comments, we withdrew one of our stacking lawsuits because we could not get the documentation necessary to prove the impact of the stacking loans on the merchant's cash flow. The merchant was out of business and gone, we believe because of the stacker's actions, and we couldn't get bank statements etc. necessary to move forward.

We have another case moving forward against Pearl in Maryland. The court's opinion, in denying Pearl's motion to dismiss, was supportive of our claim and that tortious interference is a valid course of action.

Please keep us updated on this as it moves forward.

[soscap]

To clarify Sean's comments, we withdrew one of our stacking lawsuits because we could not get the documentation necessary to prove the impact of the stacking loans on the merchant's cash flow. The merchant was out of business and gone, we believe because of the stacker's actions, and we couldn't get bank statements etc. necessary to move forward.

We have another case moving forward against Pearl in Maryland. The court's opinion, in denying Pearl's motion to dismiss, was supportive of our claim and that tortious interference is a valid course of action.

Can't you subpoena the statements?

[Funder Mark]

Can't you subpoena the statements?

From a merchant that closed up shop? Who will you give the subpoena to?

[soscap]

From a merchant that closed up shop? Who will you give the subpoena to?

The merchant is still alive, why can't you subpoena him?