[staten]

They were both suing Pearl. But of course, if Pearl's contracts are illegal in and of themselves (as determined by recent court ruling) can't all of Pearl'smerchants sue for fraud?

[NoBigDeal]

They were both suing Pearl. But of course, if Pearl's contracts are illegal in and of themselves (as determined by recent court ruling) can't all of Pearl'smerchants sue for fraud?

Sean pointed out in that thread that the lawsuit was from the old Pearl's contracts. These lawsuits were to the new pearl. Pearl likely changed up their lingo on their docs

[soscap]

Sean pointed out in that thread that the lawsuit was from the old Pearl's contracts. These lawsuits were to the new pearl. Pearl likely changed up their lingo on their docs

That is correct but the issue wasn't only in the contracts but also in their behavior towards the merchant.

[NoBigDeal]

That is correct but the issue wasn't only in the contracts but also in their behavior towards the merchant.

What do you mean by behavior towards the merchant?

[Sean Cash]

What do you mean by behavior towards the merchant?

As in if you are reckless and tell the merchant you're a direct "lender" because you don't understand your own product and use all sorts of lending terminology.

[soscap]

As in if you are stupid and tell the merchant you're a direct "lender" because you don't understand your own product and use all sorts of lending terminology.

Or worse, write Loaned in your affidavit.

[soscap]

What do you mean by behavior towards the merchant?

"According to the affidavit of Pearl's Head of Underwriting, submitted in support of the motion for default, the ledger annexed to that motion "shows that defendants began with a total of loaned funds of $13,050.00,[FN2] against which they paid a total of $6,734.00, leaving a balance due of $6,316.00, to which - per the agreement - has been added check bounce fees of $665.00 and the contractual default fee of $2,500, making a total due to $9,481.00." Plaintiff also claimed entitlement, under Agreement ¶ 3.4, to recover any costs associated with this action, plus reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $3,160.00. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Neely guaranteed defendant RDN's performance under the Agreement." shows that defendants began with a total of loaned funds. Also, on the funding call the underwriter used the term "loan"

[Sean Cash]

"According to the affidavit of Pearl's Head of Underwriting, submitted in support of the motion for default, the ledger annexed to that motion "shows that defendants began with a total of loaned funds of $13,050.00,[FN2] against which they paid a total of $6,734.00, leaving a balance due of $6,316.00, to which - per the agreement - has been added check bounce fees of $665.00 and the contractual default fee of $2,500, making a total due to $9,481.00." Plaintiff also claimed entitlement, under Agreement ¶ 3.4, to recover any costs associated with this action, plus reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $3,160.00. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Neely guaranteed defendant RDN's performance under the Agreement." shows that defendants began with a total of loaned funds. Also, on the funding call the underwriter used the term "loan"

And that could be all it takes to cross the threshold into illegal territory. This course will help you understand the differences between purchases and loans: http://www.counselorlibrary.com/public/courses-mca.cfm