Cs sought statutory interest at the contractual price charged by D (29% per month); the Judge rejected Cs’ first rationale (that this is the price C needed to spend to borrow funds) and stated this process ought to be limited to commercial cases.
224: Cs’ second argument had been that Cs might have utilized the extra funds to settle other HCST loans – there could be more merit to that particular argument, nonetheless it will be better explored from the facts of the specific instance. Continue reading “Compensatory Interest”