Key provision: "The first element requires proof
Post# of 15187
Posted On: 05/12/2016 8:06:15 AM
Key provision: "The first element requires proof of the general intent to charge a rate in excess of the legal rate rather than the specific intent to violate the usury statute (Angelo v Brenner, 90 AD2d 131 [1982]"
That is met and then some with KBM / $HJOE
Theor history and prior bad acts support their intent with HJOE. What is their counter - "HJOE knew we were usurious lenders"...? Neither Adamson nor Jaynes were part of the Wall Street crowd. When Veal took the loans- they were already past the point where normal credit would lend due to original toxic debt and the PLN fiasco shutting down production/sales. While that has nothing to do with the KBM note specifically, it does show HJOE was in "desperate straights" and thus able to be preyed upon which the prevention thereof is the intent of usury laws. Whether or not they can definitely prove it remains to be seen but there is sufficient precedent shown and prior bad acts to demonstrate bad faith and intent.
That is met and then some with KBM / $HJOE
Theor history and prior bad acts support their intent with HJOE. What is their counter - "HJOE knew we were usurious lenders"...? Neither Adamson nor Jaynes were part of the Wall Street crowd. When Veal took the loans- they were already past the point where normal credit would lend due to original toxic debt and the PLN fiasco shutting down production/sales. While that has nothing to do with the KBM note specifically, it does show HJOE was in "desperate straights" and thus able to be preyed upon which the prevention thereof is the intent of usury laws. Whether or not they can definitely prove it remains to be seen but there is sufficient precedent shown and prior bad acts to demonstrate bad faith and intent.
(6)
(0)