PPR stands for Property Procurement Request and is a real estate procurement process designed to ensure all parties involved in real estate transactions have clear expectations, identify any risks in supplier selection and contract negotiation stages and manage them effectively. Implementation of PPR may help make real estate transactions more cost-efficient while being implemented comes with its own set of disadvantages that need to be carefully considered before taking a final decision.
Established in 2007, PPR Capital Management specializes in residential distressed mortgages and real estate. It advises investment funds that acquire and manage 1st and 2nd mortgage notes as well as non-performing loans (NPLs). Furthermore, they also offer commercial real estate strategies.
NPLs (nonperforming loans) are loans that have become delinquent and uncollectible, purchased via government auctions or fund-to-fund transactions. NPLs typically come backed by subprime mortgages that typically carry higher interest rates. Furthermore, liquidating NPLs is difficult and subject to many regulations imposed by various entities like the Federal Reserve Bank, Securities Exchange Commission and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority – these three authorities oversee this market segment of lending.
Financial Services Consumer Dispute Resolution Division of the Federal Trade Commission recently filed a lawsuit alleging PPR Realty engaged in unfair and deceptive practices, such as misinforming customers about contract terms and charging high fees for services not rendered. Furthermore, PPR Realty violated consumer protection laws with its abusive collection practices.
The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against PPR Realty alleging its billing practices violated several statutes including the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Housing Act. Furthermore, according to this suit PPR Realty was also violating Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations and state/local lending laws.
In January 1999, a Pennsylvania district court issued a final order upholding the arbitration award and finding McKenna guilty of contempt of court for failing to submit her shares. On appeal, however, McKenna sought dissolution of the injunction but it was denied on grounds that it provided necessary protection from future violations of law.