Court issues tentative ruling on motion for class certification

In the ongoing proposed class action securities litigation involving Prosper Marketplace (prosper.com) in the Superior Court of California, the court has issued a tentative ruling to grant motion for class certification.

The court will reconvene later this week to conclude defense final argument, ruling and case management conference.

You can find more details here.

Reversal, Answer and Opposition

UPDATE: The outside directors’ answer to the third amended complaint is now available from the court’s web site.

On September 20, 2011, the Superior Court of California, in the action against Prosper Marketplace (Prosper.com). received the official word from the Court of Appeal, reversing its earlier decision to dismiss the outside director defendants (Breyer, Cheng and Kagle). This followed a failed attempt by the outside directors to appeal the reversal to the California Supreme Court.

With the outside directors back in the case, the outside directors filed their answer to the operative 3rd amended complaint on September 28, 2011.  No copy of this answer document is, as of yet, available from the court’s web site.

On this same date, Prosper Marketplace filed in opposition to plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification.

You can find more details regarding developments in this case here.

September 12, 2011 Case Management Meeting

In the ongoing proposed securities class action litigation against Prosper Marketplace (Prosper.com). the Superior Court of California hosted a case management meeting this week.

According to minutes posted to the court’s web site,  Court and counsel conferred regarding case status and further proceedings.  The action was then continued until November 7, 2011, when the parties will meet again.  The agenda for the next gathering is expected to include status of discovery and further briefing and hearing schedule.

We are rapidly approaching the 3-year anniversary of this action being filed on November 26, 2008.

 

Greenwich Insurance Company files appeal

As previously reported here, Prosper’s insurance carrier, Greenwich Insurance Company, has now filed an appeal with the California Appellate Court.

The docket for this case can be found here.

This appeal appears to be related to the ruling handed down on July 1, 2001 – the text of which can be found here.

NOTE: For those who prefer to do their own document searches, keep in mind that court documents related to the insurance portion of the case operates with at least two different spellings for the insurance company, including Greenwich and Greennwich.

Prosper’s insurance company files notice of appeal

According to the docket related to PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC. VS. GREENNWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Prosper’s insurance company has filed a notice opf appeal related to the order filed on July 1, 2011.

Also this week, the court’s web site indicates Greenwich has filed a bond in the amount of  $213,876.79 .

Supreme Court declines to hear disgruntled Directors

The California Supreme Court has declined a petion filed by the outside director defendants of Prosper Marketplace (Prosper.com), seeking review of the decision handed down by the   California Court of Appeal on 4.29.2011.

Related posts:
Disgruntled Directors Petition California Supreme Court
Plaintiffs Prevail on Appeal

Prosper to insurer: We’re interested in interest

As is perhaps suitable for a lending company, Prosper Marketplace is interested in collecting interest.

There was brief action in Judge Kramer’s courtroom this morning, as the Court turned its attention to the matter of Prosper Marketplace, Inc. vs. Greennwich Insurance Company.   According to the brief information provided by the court, Court and counsel discussed the amount of prejudgment interest owed on the claim. Counsel stipulate to an agreed amount to be included in the judgment and submitted the judgment to the Court.  The judgment was signed in open Court – and Court was then adjourned.

No word on the interest rate Prosper charged.

Prosper Opposes Class Certification

In the ongoing saga of the proposed class action litigation involving Prosper Marketplace (Prosper.com), Prosper’s counsel has, according to the Court’s web site filed documents indicating its opposition to the amended motion for class certification.

No actual documents are yet available for downloading, but processing delays for scanning and posting are common.  The docket, however, suggests that what may end up being made available is a “public redacted version.” 

PCASM will update this post when/if the documents are made available by the Court.

The next “action date” on the Court’s calendar is set for July 15, 2011.

Disgruntled Directors Petition California Supreme Court

According to a recent regulatory filing made by Prosper Marketplace (Prosper.com), the outside director defendants, following the April 29, 2011 reversal by the California Court of Appeal of their previously sustained demurrer in the proposed class action litigation, are petitioning for relief from a higher power.

On June 9, 2011, the individual defendants filed a petition before the California Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeal’s opinion.

Related Post: http://prosperclassaction.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/plaintiffs-prevail-on-appeal/

Prosper shakes up its legal team

There has not been much activity to report since the California Court of Appeals ruled in the plaintiff’s favor on the previous dismissal of the outside director directors.

Today, however, recent activity on the court’s docket indicates Prosper Marketplace (Prosper.com) and its officers and directors have replaced their legal team.  Mr. Thad A. Davis of Ropes & Gray has been “substituted” for Mr. Paul Friedman of Morrison Foerster.

The next complex litigation case management meeting, previously scheduled for July 1, has been continued to July 15.