Legal Briefs
Stacking Lawsuit Results in Settlement Before Trial
June 19, 2018A lawsuit between RapidAdvance and Pearl Capital over tortious interference will not be going to trial after all, deBanked has learned. Originally scheduled to begin on June 25th, the parties have reportedly reached a settlement.
Neither party would respond for comment.
RapidAdvance filed its lawsuit against Pearl in November 2015 with the hope that they could set a precedent against “stacking.”
The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Maryland under Small Business Financial Solutions, LLC v. Pearl Beta Funding, LLC, Case No. 411478-V.
Lawyers in LendingClub Class Action Case Defend Fee That ‘Shocked’ a Judge
June 14, 2018
Lawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd represented clients in a class action suit against LendingClub and reached a settlement with the company for $125 million. The law firm, which was working on contingency, requested a 13.1 percent cut of the winnings, or $16 million, which a California Federal judge said “shocked” him.
Earlier in the week, Robbins Geller filed a 30-page motion in defense of its fee. Among the law firm’s arguments are that they carried a significant financial burden with this as a contingency case and that the firm succeeded in reaching an uncommonly high settlement. “A settlement that Wall Street analysts have described as ‘far exceed[ing] our expectations’ and ‘coming in at the high end of the historical range of settlements,’” the motion read.
Robbins Geller also compared its success to the results (or lack thereof) of government agencies, like the SEC and the DOJ, which have presumably tried to represent the investor clients against LendingClub and have failed.
“The DOJ lawyers do not even have to deal with counsel for witnesses whom they question before a grand jury, nor do they have to ask for documents – they can seize them through search warrants….Yet, despite all these advantages, the government has not brought a single civil or criminal charge in connection with these same facts. Nor has the government recovered a single penny for investors. Relative to the government’s results, a $125 million recovery is astounding.”
The motion also acknowledged that they were up against a defendant whose resources were far greater than theirs. And it further asserts that the firm’s effective research and skill ought to be rewarded – for obtaining the right documents and being prepared to depose the right witnesses that adequately scared LendingClub into paying a very generous settlement.
There will be a court hearing to address Robbins Geller’s motion on July 19 in the Northern District of California.
Eaglewood Not Happy About World Global Financing Bankruptcy
May 21, 2018A new complaint filed by Eaglewood SPV I LP suggests they’re not happy with ailing merchant cash advance company World Global Financing (WGF). Eaglewood originally sued WGF on March 28th in the New York Supreme Court and secured an injunction on May 2nd to turn over the cash and proceeds from receivables owed to Eaglewood. According to Eaglewood, WGF proceeded to ignore the court’s order and Eaglewood hasn’t been receiving anything. On May 8th, WGF filed Chapter 11.
The new complaint alleges that WGF and the company’s owner have engaged in fraud and that Eaglewood has been damaged to the tune of $6.5 million.
Sneaky Debt Settlement Company Temporarily Restrained by Judge
May 20, 2018
A debt settlement company has sunk to new lows, according to a petition filed by Yellowstone Capital in Nassau County. Defendants SMCA, Inc. DBA Settle My Cash Advance, Thassos.com Corp DBA Thassos.com, and George Alexander, have been accused of fraudulently transferring funds owed to Yellowstone Capital to themselves while trying to mask the evidence in the process.
Unlike other purported debt settlement schemes, the Settle My Cash Advance defendants are alleged to have first actively coached a merchant to hide his money in new bank accounts rather than pay his judgment. This, according to emails attached as exhibits, included instructions by the defendants on how to cover up the paper trail so that the money could not be traced. Once this was successfully carried out, the defendants then absconded with the merchant’s money, leaving him broke and the judgment still unpaid.
According to the merchant’s sworn affidavit, Settle My Cash Advance lured him into believing that they not only had a relationship with Yellowstone but that they would also reduce the judgment entered against his business by 25% – 70%.
“SMCA (Settle My Cash Advance) told me to transfer all funds, as my business and I earned them, to SMCA to hold them for us so that Yellowstone could not collect on its judgment,” the merchant wrote. “The deal that SMCA represented to me was that SMCA would take the funds, hold them in trust, and use them to settle our obligations with Yellowstone for a small contingency fee.”
What happened instead is that the defendants ran off with the money held in trust and did nothing to help with Yellowstone, the documents say.
Presented with the facts laid out before it, the Court ordered that the funds held by Settle My Cash Advance be restrained pending a May 30th hearing.
Merchant Cash Advances Are Not “Masked” Usury or Loans
May 17, 2018
A New York Supreme Court judge cited the decision rendered in Champion Auto Sales, LLC et al. v Pearl Beta Funding, LLC on Wednesday, when she dismissed usury claims brought against four merchant cash advance companies.
The case at issue was Wilkinson Floor covering, Inc., Stephen Wilkinson v Cap Call, LLC, TVT Capital, LLC, Yellowstone Capital, LLC, Ace Funding Source, LLC (Index #160256/2016)
Champion set forth the general principle that the underlying agreement in that case was not a usurious transaction, she opined. Beside the plaintiff’s claim being procedurally deficient, the judge said that the plaintiffs had not established usury because a rudimentary element of usury is the existence of a loan or forbearance of money and when there is neither, there can be no usury.
Per the Honorable Carmen Victoria St. George:
In New York, there is a predisposition in this State against declaring that contracts are usurious. This is especially true with respect to commercial agreements, where “usurious agreement[s] will not be presumed from facts equally consistent with a lawful purpose.”
Additionally, because plaintiffs’ obligation to pay them future receivables is conditioned on plaintiffs’ receipt of such, the agreements at issue are not loans.
Judge Grants Restraining Order Against Deceptive Funding Company
May 6, 2018
JTT Funding, the company previously accused of having forged a Confession of Judgment, stands accused now of stealing the identity of a rival funding company. On May 3rd, New York Supreme Court Judge W. Franc Perry granted an injunction against JTT Funding from using the name, logo and likeness of Accel Capital from its marketing and contract materials.
Similar to the forged COJ suit (which was brought by FundKite), JTT Funding did not answer or contest the claims.
Plaintiff Accel Capital demonstrated in their papers that an agent of JTT was using a gmail address with “accelcapital” in the name and the company’s logo in its contracts. When a merchant funded by JTT Funding (who pretended to be Accel) inadvertently contacted the real Accel Capital, the scheme was revealed.
JTT Funding went on to ignore Accel’s Cease and Desist letter, court papers say, which led to the lawsuit and demand for an immediate injunction.
According to the Financial Times, JTT Funding is owned by Queens-born mixed martial arts fighter Jim “The Tyrant” Boudourakis. In his October 2017 interview with the publication, Boudourakis said, “There was a learning curve, going from being a fighter to a salesman. But I’m good with people.” FT also reported that his company had 18 full-time salespeople and was funding $4 – $5 million per month.
In the FundKite suit, it is alleged that Boudourakis’ first name Jim is an alias.
The Accel Capital suit can be found in the New York Supreme Court under Index Number: 153447/2018
Despite Movement of Negative Bill for MCA and Factoring Industries, Hope for a Solution
April 23, 2018
Last week, California State politicians gathered for a hearing on SB 1235, a bill that would require the disclosure of an Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for all loans and non-loans, including MCA and factoring products. This is very problematic because APR (which includes interest rate) cannot be calculated for most MCA and factoring products for one reason: time. What makes merchant cash advance and factoring unique is that the timing of payments is flexible, and therefore unknown.
“It’s impossible to compute,” said veteran factoring lawyer Bob Zadek about calculating APR for most MCA and factoring products. “Interest = principal x rate x time. Since [they] cannot determine how long the advance will be outstanding – since repayment is a function of the borrower’s cash flow – the algebra doesn’t work.”
The bill, introduced by California State Senator Steve Glazer, moved out of the Senate committee on Banking and Financial Institutions and is headed to the Judiciary committee – closer to potential passage. Yet advocates of the MCA industry, one of whom testified in the assembly room in Sacramento, are hopeful.
“There were a number of state senators who clearly understood the problems with applying an APR to a commercial transaction and to a purchase and sale of receivables transaction,” said Katherine Fisher, a partner at Hudson Cook, LLP who spoke on behalf of the Commercial Finance Coalition (CFC). CFC is an alliance of financial companies that educates government regulators and elected officials on issues related to non-bank commercial finance. CFC Executive Director, Dan Gans, told deBanked that he believed the committee really understood what Fisher was trying to convey.
Another major advocacy group is the Small Business Finance Association (SBFA). They brought Joseph Looney, COO and General Counsel of RapidAdvance, to testify against SB 1235, and SBFA Chief of Staff Steve Denis sounded optimistic, saying that they have a very good relationship with State Senator Glazer’s office.
“To me, despite the fact that they moved [on] a bill that we’re opposed to through the process,” Denis said. “I think the folks that we’ve been meeting with out there – the senators – they’re all very open to our industry and open to having broader discussion about how to [best] disclose these terms and how to make sure we’re doing what’s in the best interest of small business owners. That’s a real positive, and I’m optimistic that we can get something done.”
As for concern about the bill moving forward, Denis said it’s what he expected.
“It’s just the way the process works in California,” Denis said. “If you look at committee history, they don’t really reject a lot of bills. They like to move bills forward so they can be discussed and negotiated.”
As of this story’s publication, SB 1235’s Judiciary committee hearing had not yet been scheduled.
Update 4/26/18: The hearing is scheduled for May 8, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. PST in Room 112.
Full video of the April 18th hearing below:
Champion Auto Sales Decision Brings Closure to Another Case
April 1, 2018A merchant seeking to have a judgment against them voided on the basis that the underlying Purchase and Sale of Future Receivables agreement they entered into was actually a usurious loan, has had their motion denied pursuant to the law as decided in Champion Auto Sales, LLC et al. v Pearl Beta Funding, LLC, court records show.
3148521 Canada, Inc. and Amir Soghraty, through attorney Amos Weinberg, attempted to convince the Court that their MCA agreement with Principis Capital was actually a loan. After lingering in the court system for months, the Honorable David Benjamin Cohen, issued a decision on Friday, citing the appellate court ruling.
Specifically, plaintiff argues that the underlying judgment is based upon a usurious loan. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an arrangement where defendant purchased the future receivables that may (or may not) be collected. The Appellate Division, First Department, recently decided this very issue (argued by the same attorney as plaintiff herein) and held “the evidence demonstrates that the underlying agreement leading to the judgment by confession was not a usurious transaction” (Champion Auto Sales, LLC v Pearl Beta Funding, LLC, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 01645 [1st Dept 2018]).
The decision can be found under Index # 655008/2017 in the New York Supreme Court
