4 ms·
Oh, it's worse than that. They wanted to roll the portion of the loan with one specific creditor into a new loan, in a sweetheart deal that was going to screw
by scatters 6y ago
Oh, it's worse than that. They wanted to roll the portion of the loan with one specific creditor into a new loan, in a sweetheart deal that was going to screw over the other creditors.
To do that they needed to make an interim interest payment to that one creditor, and mark the loan as paid off to that creditor; but the system wouldn't let them mark the loan as paid off without making payment of the principal in full, and it wouldn't let them pay creditors individually.
If they'd just been "repaying" the principal they'd have caught the issue when it said (paraphrasing) "Money actually leaving, are you sure [Y/N]", but they were expecting some money to go out as interim interest (they'd got the OK to pay the relatively small amount of interim interest to the other creditors).
- Ekaros 6y agoAnd at that point I would expect them to run the transactions to some people who are exactly trained or capable to verify that this transactions is correctly recorded. If you are doing something really really specific against usual procedures no UI can save you...
- tppiotrowski 6y agoThis should be top comment. I didn’t really understand the article but you’ve explained it perfectly. Did you read a more thorough explanation somewhere?
- scatters 6y agoYes, I read about it in Matt Levine's newsletter (on Bloomberg), and then read the judgement itself - it's a surprisingly enjoyable read and the judge goes into some length to explain both the (crazy) situation and how they were compelled to interpret the law and precedent.