Skip to content

Prosper’s “Quiet Period” Hits 6 Month Milestone

April 14, 2009

UPDATED: PROSPER SHUT DOWN. (May 9, 2009)

It has now been six months since Prosper’s self-imposed “quiet period” commenced on October 14, 2008.

Since we have not seen any evidence of the “quiet period” being a condition imposed by any regulatory body, cynics would suggest that the “quiet period” is little more than a mechanism to give Prosper a plausible excuse to sanitize their blog/web site, avoid answering difficult questions and attempt to keep from digging their current hole even deeper by information being disseminated by non-lawyers.

As has been the case for years, the most balanced discussion related to peer-to-peer lending on Prosper takes place at Prospers.org.

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. dave permalink
    April 17, 2009 5:26 pm

    Lending Club’s SEC mandated quiet period was 6 months. Loanio is also in a quiet period while registering its promissory notes.

    Prosper claims that the SEC has required them to enter a quiet period, and I’ve seen no statement from the SEC that this is untrue. One would think that falsely blaming the SEC would cause Prosper a lot more problems than they already have.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not thrilled with a lot of Prosper’s actions. But this article is biased to the point of idiocy.

  2. April 17, 2009 5:53 pm

    Your comment does not appear plausible, based on the following items on the Prosper timeline:

    October 30, 2007 – Prosper’s original S-1 filing
    October 14, 2008 – Prosper goes “quiet”
    November 24, 2008 – SEC issues “cease and desist.”

  3. April 30, 2009 4:40 am

    Daves’s comment on “mandated quiet” prompted me to revisit the Quiet Period argument as explained (here) by the SEC itself. Opening statement says it: “The federal securities laws do not define the term “quiet period,” which is also referred to as the “waiting period.” However…” and the commission proceeds to describe the somewhat convoluted protocol they impose anyway. Seems one could choose to speak of this or that during a registration, but where exactly is the line? Better to be quiet and avoid possible impropriety and ensuing retribution.

    Take this stand-alone paragraph for example: “Communications by issuers more than 30 days before filing a registration statement will be permitted so long as they do not reference a securities offering that is the subject of a registration statement.” This does not expressly prohibit such discussion one to thirty days immediately prior to registration, now does it? And what about other communications during the those 30 days? Do I dare?

  4. A & S permalink
    May 6, 2009 3:34 pm

    We are interested in joining the Class Action Suit against Prosper Learning and Transforming Debt to Wealth programs.
    We were to be taught how to reduce our debt, also how to build streams of income using eBay, but the eBay coach didn’t seem to know a great deal about how the site worked or why certain things happened or how to fix it. We did not make a dime on the attempts to sell on E bay.

    We are being told that we still need to pay the $14,000.00 plus paid to them on two different charge accounts. They have their own finance company charging 23% and we were to transfer to one of our cards. But being unempoyed and having this huge debt makes it unlikely that we will get a lower rate anywhere.

    • May 7, 2009 9:52 am

      I think you have the wrong Prosper. This blog covers the ongoing legal proceedings against San Francisco-based “peer-to-peer” lending platform Prosper Marketplace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: