adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 8, 2019 17:24:11 GMT
I hope you are right but I can't see how they will do this (does not mean they won't ; just that I can't see how) Clearly this miscreant has had some very dodgy company whom I guess have advised him how to stop FS and others from getting their hands on our money. On paper this defendant is bankrupt and having his house with zero liquidity repossessed and is getting divorced which may or may not just be on paper and a scam to muddy the water. Now Daddy seems to be worth a bob or two so maybe FS can go after him but if there is nothing in the contract I don't see how they can.
This chap is not even in the country and is undergoing "medical treatment" (probably for laughing too much at FS). He may well be arrested and possibly extradited to the US (I do hope so!) where I can't see the FBI recovering this money being their top priority (may be wrong). Can FS bring legal/civil action for a crime/dispute committed outside of the US against a felon in a US slammer - I have no idea but I do know it won't be easy and it won't be cheap!
When I borrowed money (long time ago) for development the bank knew my bank balance and payments better then I did - is there an audit trail for the £2.3m - somehow I doubt it!
I really hope FS come clean over this...
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 8, 2019 17:26:40 GMT
When the loan is defaulted this makes it eligible to be offset against tax which has a clear financial benefit for the lender. Unfortunately it also draws attention to the non performance of the loan and the fact fundingsecure misrepresented the security. I don't think that is correct...there are various threads about this subject on this forum. I have written off loans myself on platforms, despite them not being formally defaulted. As I said before, AC do not 'default' any loans. If you deem a loan irrecoverable then you can write it off for tax purposes. I will try and dig out the legislation if I get a spare minute.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 8, 2019 17:35:30 GMT
This is the main thread about bad debt relief: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/4942/debt-relief-publication-final-guidance"When does a peer to peer loan become irrecoverable
A peer to peer loan may be accepted as having become irrecoverable when there is no reasonable prospect of the recovery of the loan. When assessing recoverability, the funds available and potentially available to the borrower must be considered. A claim therefore cannot be established simply because the borrower has insufficient liquidity on the date the loan had been called in.
Whether a loan has become irrecoverable should be judged on a case by case basis, however as the loan will be managed by a platform, the platform would usually be in a position to determine when a loan has become irrecoverable. The platform would then inform the lender that the loan had become irrecoverable.
If the platform does not undertake this action, then the lender may still determine that the loan has become irrecoverable. However it will be the responsibility of the lender to show that there is no reasonable prospect of the recovery of the loan and it is NOT simply a case of late payment. In my opinion any investor in this loan would be well within their rights to deem the loan irrecoverable at this point. That doesn't mean there won't be some sort of recovery in the future.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 6,586
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 8, 2019 17:36:31 GMT
Clearly this miscreant has had some very dodgy company whom I guess have advised him how to stop FS and others from getting their hands on our money. Is there an audit trail for the £2.3m - somehow I doubt it! The method was quite simple: Instead of handing over the assets into the custody of fundingsecure for the duration of the loan (as per their terms and conditions) Funding Secure were happy to accept a contractual obligation instead. This left the paintings in his possession and he sold them, presumably to feed his addictions. Nothing sophisticated about it at all. Once he saw that Funding Secure were prepared to lend against artwork without taking them he rinsed and repeated. To their credit FS did ultimately stop giving him loans despite requests.
As for the audit trail fundingsecure are aware of who some of the paintings were sold to and when. However they have no legal title or claim over the artwork.
The first time they asked Mr G**** “to hand over the artwork” was 6th March 2018.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,905
Likes: 11,127
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 8, 2019 17:37:49 GMT
When the loan is defaulted this makes it eligible to be offset against tax which has a clear financial benefit for the lender. Unfortunately it also draws attention to the non performance of the loan and the fact fundingsecure misrepresented the security. I don't think that is correct...there are various threads about this subject on this forum. I have written off loans myself on platforms, despite them not being formally defaulted. As I said before, AC do not 'default' any loans. If you deem a loan irrecoverable then you can write it off for tax purposes. I will try and dig out the legislation if I get a spare minute. That's not true. AC do default loans & charge interest penalty as a result. They also declare loans as eligible for loss relief on the tax statement under SAIM12000 'treatable' definitions. What they have yet to do is write off any loans as per the 'becoming' definition. It's debatable but as the 'treatable' definition includes legal action to effect recovery the art loans can probably be claimed as legal action against the personal borrower is clearly verifiable eg he has be declared bankrupt. (Not advice etc) The pertinent part of the guidance (missed above by bg) When is a peer to peer loan treated as irrecoverable? Under the legislation for income tax relief for irrecoverable peer to peer loans in certain circumstances a loan may be treated as irrecoverable for the purposes of the relief even if there may be a prospect that the lender could recover some of the amount outstanding. This is the case for the following situations: Loans with security When loans are made against security, a loan may be treated as becoming irrecoverable asif the security did not exist. Loans where legal recovery action is taken When the borrower has entered legal recovery procedures such as liquidation, administration, receivership or bankruptcy the loan may be treated as becoming irrecoverable as if such action was not available
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 8, 2019 17:45:18 GMT
I don't think that is correct...there are various threads about this subject on this forum. I have written off loans myself on platforms, despite them not being formally defaulted. As I said before, AC do not 'default' any loans. If you deem a loan irrecoverable then you can write it off for tax purposes. I will try and dig out the legislation if I get a spare minute. That's not true. AC do default loans & charge interest penalty as a result. They also declare loans as eligible for loss relief on the tax statement under SAIM12000 'treatable' definitions. What they have yet to do is write off any loans as per the 'becoming' definition. It's debatable but as the 'treatable' definition includes legal action to effect recovery the art loans can probably be claimed as legal action against the personal borrower is clearly verifiable eg he has be declared bankrupt. (Not advice etc) OK, but they don't mark any loan as defaulted or write off any balances even when recovery is closed. They just say defaulted in the loan updates. I don't think they declare loans eligible for loss relief either. My AC tax statement just shows "loans in recovery" and says they "could" be declared as a potential loss. They also say "Assetz Capital are not authorised to give tax advice and recommend that you speak to a Chartered Tax Advisor if you need guidance." I'm not aware they say anywhere that these loans are eligible for loss relief under SAIM12000. Either way, I don't think anyone would have a problem if they declared the art loans as irrecoverable....as long as they then pay tax on any recovery.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 8, 2019 17:51:24 GMT
Mousey - fantastic work from you. So all this "complicated legal case waffle " from FS is tosh - quelle surprise! Myself and others asked and asked FS if these paintings were in their possession !
Any forum member happy to lend me £2.3m against a contractual obligation of my property portfolio please PM me - I will even take you out for a liquid lunch and get you smashed...
To coin a phrase - I don't believe it!
Bet the BHs in this one are interested in your comments!
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 2,774
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 8, 2019 17:59:10 GMT
I expect at least a few of those big hitters will be taking legal advice, and rightly. Defaulting the loan is what they want to see, which is why it's going to be kicked down the road. Defaulting the loan makes no difference to the recovery. The big hitters in this loan do not care if the loan is defaulted or not, all they care about is getting their money back. The reason FS have not defaulted it is because they still anticipate full recovery (there are steps outside of what is being discussed on this forum underway to do this). Their policy (rightly or wrongly) is only to default loans when they think there will not be a full recovery. I don't like this policy, I think it should be more clearly defined.....as soon as formal recovery steps are undertaken I think a loan should be defaulted (as on FC). That way things are clear and unambiguous. Again however, this makes no difference to the ultimate recovery and is just a case of semantics. The real BH's just don't care, all they are focused on is recovery. AC for example don't have defaults, even when the security has sold and there has been a loss there is no default. The loan just remains suspended. Would you consider giving more details of the sorts of things this might be and how would any lender know about them? Do you personally think there is a good chance of this being repaid?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 8, 2019 19:41:39 GMT
forgot to say
open letter to FS - can you tell me/us where it states in the loan details that it would be secured against a "contractual obligation" as silly me was thinking it was held in secured storage as per stated on the FS web site...
Also do FS have control of the Lowry as we were told it has held at Con****ines
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 8, 2019 20:15:42 GMT
The paintings are gone, our money is gone and the borrower has been declared bankrupt. That’s the hard facts The blame lies squarely with FS. It’s incompetence of the highest order. As always, their mistakes become our problems and we’re expected to say nothing and suck it up.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 6,586
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 9, 2019 13:01:32 GMT
Mousey - fantastic work from you. So all this "complicated legal case waffle " from FS is tosh You're welcome. Well it is incredibly legally complicated to enforce a contractual obligation to pay from someone who has no assets and is declared bankrupt. Enforcement when you have the assets in your possession is a relative doddle.
In the loan agreement fundingsecure states "The Security is held by us as bailee for value and as security trustee for the Creditors." I define hold as "have in one's possession" I define as bailee as "a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership."
There can be no doubt that any reasonable person would take this to mean anything other than that the goods would be delivered to and held in the custody of fundingsecure.
Indeed this understanding was confirmed by an update on Facility 2 – Fine Art 3020915407 "The painting remained in storage at Constantines at all times.”
And in the loan description of Facility 9 – Lowry 1614460897 “A loan secured on a painting by LS Lowry. The painting is held at Constantines, London.”
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 9, 2019 18:24:02 GMT
Mousey - thanks a lot - sure won't argue with what you have written and I would wager a copy of your reply has already been sent to the legal representatives of some Big Hitters. I am clueless as to what other avenues FS have for recovering this loan apart from buying 100,000 lottery tickets! I guess getting a judgement would be really expensive and complicated and that is the easy part compared to the hard work of getting it enforced!
|
|
henryjford
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 139
|
Post by henryjford on Mar 10, 2019 7:50:23 GMT
When the loan is defaulted this makes it eligible to be offset against tax which has a clear financial benefit for the lender. Unfortunately it also draws attention to the non performance of the loan and the fact fundingsecure misrepresented the security.
I asked fundingsecure why they have not defaulted the loan and they replied: "As the case continues, until it reaches its conclusion there is no certainty that an loss will be incurred by investors... any loss is dependant on the outcome of the ongoing legal case"
However in their update of 1/6/2018 in loan 8010286828 they stated: “Based on feedback already obtained from our receivers, we believe we can make a full recovery - even with the added time and cost to go through the process. We have therefore decided to default the loan and appoint receivers.”
This update makes it clear that even in circumstances where a full recovery can be made they still can and will default the loan. Funding Secure seem to be making up their excuses as they go along. Unfortunately I have to draw the conclusion that with regards to these art loans fundingsecure are acting in the best interests of themselves and not of lenders.
Again Mousey, I am 100% with you, and show my appreciation at the work you are putting in.
|
|
henryjford
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 139
|
Post by henryjford on Mar 10, 2019 8:01:46 GMT
I expect at least a few of those big hitters will be taking legal advice, and rightly. Defaulting the loan is what they want to see, which is why it's going to be kicked down the road. Defaulting the loan makes no difference to the recovery. The big hitters in this loan do not care if the loan is defaulted or not, all they care about is getting their money back. The reason FS have not defaulted it is because they still anticipate full recovery (there are steps outside of what is being discussed on this forum underway to do this). Their policy (rightly or wrongly) is only to default loans when they think there will not be a full recovery. I don't like this policy, I think it should be more clearly defined.....as soon as formal recovery steps are undertaken I think a loan should be defaulted (as on FC). That way things are clear and unambiguous. Again however, this makes no difference to the ultimate recovery and is just a case of semantics. The real BH's just don't care, all they are focused on is recovery. AC for example don't have defaults, even when the security has sold and there has been a loss there is no default. The loan just remains suspended. bg this is a bit disconcerting for investors - I appreciate that you must be privy to some information that the rest of us do not have, is that the case? As we are speculating that FS has been negligent and how we will react to no repayment.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 10, 2019 10:32:40 GMT
Defaulting the loan makes no difference to the recovery. The big hitters in this loan do not care if the loan is defaulted or not, all they care about is getting their money back. The reason FS have not defaulted it is because they still anticipate full recovery (there are steps outside of what is being discussed on this forum underway to do this). Their policy (rightly or wrongly) is only to default loans when they think there will not be a full recovery. I don't like this policy, I think it should be more clearly defined.....as soon as formal recovery steps are undertaken I think a loan should be defaulted (as on FC). That way things are clear and unambiguous. Again however, this makes no difference to the ultimate recovery and is just a case of semantics. The real BH's just don't care, all they are focused on is recovery. AC for example don't have defaults, even when the security has sold and there has been a loss there is no default. The loan just remains suspended. bg this is a bit disconcerting for investors - I appreciate that you must be privy to some information that the rest of us do not have, is that the case? As we are speculating that FS has been negligent and how we will react to no repayment. FS are taking action that they believe will recover investors money. Whatever reaction you may be thinking about regarding no repayment, you first have to wait for recovery actions to run their course. My point was that whether the loan is 'defaulted' is neither here nor there with regard to chances of recovery. It also does not stop investors writing off the loans for tax purposes. People with large sums of money in this loan do not care if the loan meets the FS definition of a default, all they care about is getting their money back.
|
|