Posted On: 04/05/2016 10:18:07 AM
Post# of 15187
Two things should be compelling for HJOEs case/counter claims. The first you touched on below:
Attempts to disguise interest may put a loan in jeopardy. In order to determine whether a transaction is usurious, courts look not to its form but to its substance or real character. Warrants, success fees, consulting fees and other fees may be appropriate, but if used to disguise interest, lenders may be inviting trouble.
The second which is also tied to the first is "entering into the contract in good faith." Due to prior bad acts, pattern of behavior, and what could be argued usury by disguising the loans with charges, fees, penalties, etc
Throw in the ongoing negotiations in bad faith, harassment, and apparent connections with bad actor MMs and message boards and HJOE should have a compelling case.
Attempts to disguise interest may put a loan in jeopardy. In order to determine whether a transaction is usurious, courts look not to its form but to its substance or real character. Warrants, success fees, consulting fees and other fees may be appropriate, but if used to disguise interest, lenders may be inviting trouble.
The second which is also tied to the first is "entering into the contract in good faith." Due to prior bad acts, pattern of behavior, and what could be argued usury by disguising the loans with charges, fees, penalties, etc
Throw in the ongoing negotiations in bad faith, harassment, and apparent connections with bad actor MMs and message boards and HJOE should have a compelling case.
(5)
(0)
