Skip to content

***PCASM BREAKING NEWS***

COURT ORDERS NOTIFICATION TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS.

This blog tracks highlights of the class action lawsuit against Prosper.com (Hellum v. Prosper Marketplace, Inc.). It is NOT the official Notification Administrator site. That site is located at www.ProsperClassAction.com.

Prosper’s insurance company files notice of appeal

August 17, 2011

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 .

Advertisements

Supreme Court declines to hear disgruntled Directors

July 20, 2011

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

July 1, 2011

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

June 30, 2011

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

June 22, 2011

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: https://prosperclassaction.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/plaintiffs-prevail-on-appeal/

Prosper shakes up its legal team

June 2, 2011

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. 

 

Plaintiffs prevail on appeal

April 29, 2011

SECOND UPDATE: Director defendants petition California Supreme Court. Related post.

UPDATE: The court has posted its opinion.  You can read it here.

In the ongoing saga of the proposed class action litigation against peer-to-peer (p2p) lender Prosper Marketplace (prosper.com), The California Court of Appeals, finding in favor of the lender plaintiffs, has reversed the previous order of the Superior Court to dismiss from the case those defendants known as the “outside director defendants.”

The notice, filed this evening, on the court’s web site simply states: The judgment is reversed. Plaintiffs shall recover their costs on appeal.

The posting of the court’s opinion is still pending.

%d bloggers like this: