Articles by deBanked Staff
MJ Capital Now Alleged to Be $200M+ Ponzi Scheme
November 22, 2021
Ever since the SEC sued MJ Capital Funding, LLC in August, more information has been revealed about the potential size and scope of the alleged fraud. It was originally estimated that between $70M – $129M was raised by MJ Capital from over 2,150 investors. But now with access to the books and records, investigators believe it is much much higher.
“From the Receiver’s preliminary investigation, it appears that at least 5,500 investors were induced by Johanna Garcia and over 400 promoters to invest as much as $200,000,000 in this Ponzi scheme,” Court filings state.
If true, that would likely make it the largest fraud in the industry’s history. And it’s been a mess trying to recover the funds, it seems.
“Though several individuals have agreed to return funds and other assets to the Receiver, many others have not, and several continue to mislead the victims by counseling them not to register their claims on the Receiver’s website and advising them that the Receivership Defendants’ business will reopen and that is how they will be repaid.”
The loyalty that many investors feel towards MJ Capital’s former CEO is evident by the raw number of signatures attached to a Change.org petition to offer her sympathy and support. 3,243 names say they support her and her mission to unfreeze the money, which is not going to happen.
Those impacted appear confused as to why the company is in trouble in the first place simply because checks were still being sent out to investors at the time the SEC action took place.
The Receiver says that it’s because MJ Capital “had little in the way of actual MCA business, and could not possibly sustain the promised repayments to investors plus the ‘referral fees’ to promoters. Rather, they were paying these amounts with funds raised from new investors, in classic Ponzi scheme fashion.”
In other words, the checks were bound to stop coming eventually, because there was no actual underlying business.
The alleged fraud is now so large that the SEC has asked the Court for time to file an amended lawsuit. The judge has given them until February to file the documents.
ConstitutionDAO NFTs
November 20, 2021If NFTs can be used to capture a moment or experience, then there should be some already available to showcase the current state of the movement. Here are some that we have found:
IOU Financial Originates $52.2M in Q3
November 19, 2021
IOU Financial continued its growth trajectory this past quarter with $52.2M in small business funding originations. It was the company’s biggest month since inception.
“Our successful migration to a marketplace strategy has enabled IOU Financial to capture more volume in Q3 than would have previously been possible,” stated Robert Gloer, President and CEO in an official statement. “This has proven to be a win-win that has in turn given us the financial latitude to invest in growth initiatives and further reduce our corporate debt.”
The company was also profitable in Q3, though the company said this was “due in part to a reversal in its provision for loan losses and recoveries of loans previously written off, as well as a reduction in operating expenses due to the recognition of $1.5 million in employee retention credits.”
IOU’s customers have been in business for an average of 11.5 years and borrow $82,688 on average for a weighted average term of 11.9 months.
For the first 3 quarters of 2021, the company has originated $111.9M.
Buying the Constitution at $20 Mil? More Like $25 Mil
November 16, 2021
While crypto fans rally to hit a $20 million fundraising target in order to make a competitive bid for a copy of the United States Constitution on Thursday, lurking in the background is another cost, the auction house fees.
Known as the “Buyer’s Premium,” Sotheby’s charges 25% on the first $400k, 20% on the next $3.6M and $13.9% on the amount over $4 million, according to the auction terms.
That would mean that a $20 million winning bid would generate $3,044,000 in Buyer’s Premium Fees. And that’s before an additional 1% overhead premium equivalent to $200,000, bringing the house fees to $3,244,000.
Oh, and that’s not inclusive of the upfront sales tax of $1,775,000 (8.875% of the sales price).
All combined, the fees and taxes to take the $20 million haul off the premises, before transport, preservation, and security is: $4,819,000.
That means that the ConstitutionDAO would really need at least $25 million in its coffers in order to place a legitimate $20 million bid.
On Tuesday at 5pm EST, approximately 48 hours before auction time, the DAO had only raised 1,382 ETH, equal to about $5.87M. Sotheby’s starts the bidding at 6:30pm on Thursday at its location in NYC.
Time will tell if it is able to muster up the rest in time.
New York’s Fourth Judicial Department Affirms Its Settled Law That MCA Agreements Are Not Usurious
November 16, 2021
New York’s Appellate Division for the Fourth Judicial Department in the Supreme Court of New York issued a landmark decision for the merchant cash advance industry on November 12th.
By affirming the original decision issued in Kennard Law P.C. DBA Kennard Law and Alfonso Kennard v High Speed Capital LLC (Index No: 805626/2020), the Appellate Division agreed that among other things that it is settled law in New York that the underlying purchase and sale of future receivables agreement at issue in the case is not a usurious loan.
On June 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against the defendant, asking the Court to vacate a confession of judgment on the basis that the defendant’s underlying contract dated back on August 24, 2017 was really an unenforceable criminally usurious loan.
The defendant moved to dismiss and the judge granted the motion, holding that:
1. Plaintiffs’ claim of usury is barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to usury based claims.
2. Plaintiffs have failed to plead a cognizable cause of action upon which to seek relief.
3. Plaintiffs have no recoverable damages.
4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by documentary evidence and settled law in New York holding that the parties’ underlying agreement was not a usurious loan.
Plaintiffs appealed, hoping that the Fourth Department would be persuaded by their arguments that the agreement was usurious. It wasn’t. Instead the Appellate Division unmistakably and unanimously affirmed the original judgment.
The decision demonstrates that there is consensus across judicial departments. Kennard in the Fourth Department (Western New York) is similar to Champion Auto Sales, LLC et al. v Pearl Beta Funding, LLC in the First Department (Manhattan and the Bronx) circa 2018.
Coincidentally, the attorney representing the losing parties, Amos Weinberg, is the same in both landmark cases.
The attorney representing High Speed Capital was Christopher Murray of Stein Adler Dabah & Zelkowitz, LLP.
Marcus By Goldman Sachs Will Become Goldman Sachs Marcus
November 12, 2021
Brace yourself for the craziest rebrand in fintech history.
Just kidding.
Marcus by Goldman Sachs is changing its name to Goldman Sachs Marcus.
:::Mind Blown:::
The news, publicized by Forbes, said that the bank now feels more confident in leading the division with its own name first after initially applying caution.
Goldman found that their customers had a strong brand affinity with the name ‘Goldman Sachs’ and wanted to “be closer to the brand,” said Stephanie Cohen, Goldman’s Global Co-Head of Consumer and Wealth Management.
The full scoop can be read at Forbes.
The Crazy Lawsuit Against Marcus Lemonis Was Dismissed
November 11, 2021The supposed bombshell lawsuit filed by Nicolas Goureau, Stephanie Menkin, and ML Fashion against Marcus Lemonis has been dismissed. Despite the sensational allegations that enabled Forbes to pen a major story, the Court found the entire lawsuit defective and dismissed it altogether on October 15.
The plaintiffs have advised the Court that they intend to try again by filing a second amended complaint. That would in fact make it their third attempt to try even getting past the opening stage of litigation.
The dismissed lawsuit had been packaged up to make headlines, opening with a monologue about it being the culmination of an “eight-month investigation” carried out with the help of a “former district attorney and a top law school professor, and a world renown psychiatrist that was spurred by the coming forward of no less than seventy (70) family businesses that have been destroyed…”
Despite all this, the judge ordered the suit “dismissed in its entirety.”
Upstart is Heading into Small Business Lending
November 10, 2021
Upstart, the fintech AI consumer lender originally known for its student loan platform, is heading into small business lending.
“…we believe there is an unmet need to provide fast, easy access to affordable installment loans to business owners across the country,” said Upstart CEO David Girouard during the earnings call. “Every small business is different and they operate across a crazy wide spectrum of industries.”
Girouard explained that there are “significant challenges to delivering a compelling loan product that is useful to business owners,” in which there is also reliable value for the lender itself.
“This challenge is tailor-made for Upstart,” Girouard said. “While there is no shortage of credit options to business owners, we aim to deliver the zero-latency affordable credit solution that modern businesses require. This is another product in high demand from our bank and credit union partners, and we hope to bring it to market during 2022 as well.”
Upstart is no small player. The company’s market cap is currently around $20B and it is putting out about 1.5M loans a year for a total of more than $16B.
