I’ll try to pull the lawsuit and look at it this evening. At first glance it looks like the Plaintiff lent 777 money and failed to do its due diligence on the collateral it was accepting to close the loan.
It doesn’t mean 777 didn’t commit fraud if it signed sworn statements representing the collateral was free of liens, but fraud is a high bar and is a common cause of action when a lender finds itself under-secured.
The accusations that ACAP are effectively the alter ego of 777 look a little naive on the surface which makes me question the other allegations.
I’ll report back.