Prosper’s Legal Collection Test Result Fail Expectations

Prosper has published a review of the results of a legal collection test. In November 2007, Prosper had selected 74 loans with an outstanding principal balance of approx. 704,000 US$ to conduct a test for a legal collection strategy instead of including them in a debt sale (which at that time was the usual Prosper procedure for bad debt).

The cases were handed over to the law firm Hunt & Henriques.

Since then there was none or little official communication about the progress. Relying on other sources, reported last year that several of lawsuits in these cases were lost.

The new blog post by Prosper describes in detail which steps were undertaken and what results the measures yielded. The only step that can be counted as somewhat successful was the pre-legal phase of letters threatening lawsuits which recovered about 40,000 US$ payments. 66 accounts then went into the legal process.

Surprisingly 16 cases (24%) had to be closed because the debtor moved out of state (3) or Prosper was unable to obtain service.
On a sidenote: Interested parties have raised the questions why Prosper did not apply to the court to allow service by publication, which seem to legal and often used in California as was told. In this case, after other measures failed the plaintiff runs an classified ad in a newspaper. It does not matter if the defendant actually sees this newspaper ad.

The remaining 50 cases further dwindled when Prosper deducted cases with bankruptcies and lowered credit scores which it deemed not worthwhile. Continue reading

Prosper loses several lawsuits against non-payers

One of the downsides of p2p lending service are high default rates. Results from collection attempts are low.

In an attempt to test alternatives to the existing collection process Prosper in January selected 66 cases of nonpaying borrowers and turned them over to the law firm Hunt & Henriques to pursue these cases in court.

Fred 93, one of the lenders on these loans researched the status of the court cases himself, dissatisfied that Prosper did not inform him on the status, which he says Prosper initially promised to do monthly.

According to Fred93’s findings, so far lost 6 cases and won 1 case.

Regulator forces Dutch p2p lending site boober to stop lending

Dutch p2p lending site is in big trouble. A court in Rotterdam ruled that Boober needs a license, with the judge supporting the position of the regulating authority AFM. After Boober published its interpretation what this ruling means, the AFM clarified its position in a press release.

Under pressure Boober finally posted a statement on its homepage saying that while the site remains open and existing loans will continue to be serviced, Boober stops any lender bidding. Statement:

Beste Boober Gebruiker

In tegenstelling tot wat dinsdag en woensdag is gecommuniceerd heeft Boober gisteravond na overleg met de Autoriteit Financiële Markten besloten om de krediet-bemiddelingsactiviteiten voorlopig te staken. Dit wordt geëffectueerd door uitleners voorlopig niet de mogelijkheid te geven op leningen te bieden . De site blijft gewoon beschikbaar en het besluit heeft geen enkele consequentie voor lopende leningen.

Boober betreurt de ongelukkige wijze waarop zij met de markt heeft gecommuniceerd en verwacht begin volgende week meer duidelijkheid te kunnen verschaffen.

Boober's service was controversial in the Netherlands from the start. It was even subject of discussion of the Dutch national parliament.

An update on what will happen next is expected early next week.

Richard van den Toorn, publisher of the great site has supplied with this chronology of events: Continue reading