[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I am not at all clear on the debt situation, but unless the debt was literally forgiven-- a tax event--he likely has co-liability, whether primary or secondary. I suppose the debt could have been paid off as part of the transaction, in which case he basically did get paid. Otherwise, I assume that he has indemnification or reimbursement rights in the event Fanatics defaults on the debt, but that still leaves him on the hook while the debt remains owing; i.e. I doubt he was completely released. I also assume that he signed personal guaranties on these debts, or else he has no exposure absent fraud or similar skullduggery.

Finally, I am uncertain what what was meant in the original post. Loaning money against undersecured assets (overvalued cards) does not create debt for Brent-- it just adversely impairs collectability for him. So long as his borrowers are current on repayment and don't default, there is nothing to see, even if he used those loans as collateral to get his own, provided there is no provision that allows his lender a right to call its loan due upon the occurrence of certain events.

This is one of those days where I'm just a step or so behind on my thinking. Hopefully others can make it simpler for me.

Many of them walked away from their loans, is my understanding. That created (bad) debt because of the money lent not being repaid .
.
.