The language posted at Prosper reads a bit differently from what was recently emailed to lenders:
Here is the language as it currently reads on Prosper’s site:
We have been overwhelmed by the outcry from potential investors around the country who want to participate in peer-to-peer lending. Thank you for your support and your letters to us.
After much consideration we have decided to voluntarily shut down our operation in order to complete our SEC approval for a nationwide peer-to-peer lending platform. As a result, due to regulatory concerns, and in the interest of working toward getting our registration statement effective as soon as possible, we are discontinuing our California intrastate offering at this time.
Here is what was sent via email to lenders:
We have been overwhelmed by the outcry from potential investors around the country who want to participate in peer-to-peer lending. Therefore, after much consideration we have decided to voluntarily shut down our operation in order to complete our SEC approval for a nationwide peer-to-peer lending platform.
What is the difference, you ask? In one, the alleged “outcry” is linked as the cause for the shutdown. In the other, the alleged “outcry” is a separate clause – and reads more like an admission that the SEC intervened.
So, what happened with the glowing endorsement and the legal go-ahead from the California Department of Corporations?
