I dont see anything KBM has to argue EXCEPT that t

I dont see anything KBM has to argue EXCEPT that the contract exists. While that would suffice with general contract law - when it gets into gray or illegal areas - the Plaintiff has to have considerable and compelling evidence on what the breach was and how they were damaged. I just dont see that here. Where is the damage? How were they hurt by the breach? Leading up to that - why did HJOE breach and were they compelled to by Plaintiffs actions or own contract breaches? This is where I think it gets very murky for KBM. Ift hey push too far - they expose their aggressive trading and profits and not only do they lose the ability to claim they were materially damaged but they also start treading into the usury waters. The normal argument against this that they have d9ne hundreds (thousands?) of loans prior and never been charged doesnt mean they arent usrious. They may have pushed a company too far and seriously overestimated their ability to fight back (by dramatically underestimating their cash flow/revenues). $HJOE counsel has rather specific history in this realm. They arent up there slinging mud and hoping something sticks.

If they do default to "they s8gned the agreement" then the usury argument actually becomes stronger. These laws are there to protect borrows from predatory lenders. Saying HJOE knew what they were getting into doesnt absolve them of responsibility if courts find the terms usrious. This becomes Especially relevant when original toxic loans when they were unaware sent them down the death spiral path. Ultimately the judge will sort out good and bad faith and what the total return was and how that will be construed.