, the defendants were required to show that the creditor had intended the transaction to be usurious when it purchased the notes. Because the defendants’ had failed to make that allegation, the court rejected their usury defense.

I believe this would make a good argument as to why hjoes attorneys stated that " KBM loaned money to hjoe knowing hjoe could not pay them back," KBM expected to be paid back in shares, so it would be usurious from inception. Any thoughts ?