adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on May 17, 2019 17:15:27 GMT
I remember ES - what a nasty piece of work and a right smoothie although he never fooled me. Did you know in over 0.5 million years of human evolution he is the only person ever to have recovered from Alzheimer's! For younger readers here is an interesting article esAt least he was charged with theft/fraud and was stated to be a prolific liar - as to whether this should be the case here I could not possibly comment.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,895
Likes: 2,768
|
Post by michaelc on May 17, 2019 19:36:29 GMT
As mentioned earlier it has not been requested that the existence of the update be kept confidential.
The content really isn't really an update in my view. Like Adrian, I can only guess at why it was issued and the need for secrecy.
I remain frustrated that apparently the assets were not kept under FS's control at all times.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on May 17, 2019 20:13:29 GMT
Tell me about it - I don't think FS had control at any time...
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on May 17, 2019 20:14:21 GMT
This update does specify a date whereas the previous just advised that a range of dates had been tabled, so that's something. Whether the Borrower sticks to it or not is another matter.
Court processes can be glacially slow and information is likely to be sparse and sporadic for long periods, with only an occasional flourish of activity. Some wag might point out FS probably feel perfectly at home.
Here, the Borrower is unwilling and will quite possibly attempt to frustrate things at every turn. If the a defendant wants to be awkward and delay things, the even a straight forward domestic property repossession case can be dragged out for years. I've a loan on BridgeCrowd (the property is in England) that's entering its' 3rd year of court wrangling for no other reason than the Borrower has played the legal system to stretch it out that long.
I am fairly certain of two things. 1) As much as it might be argued they should, FS will not make good on the loans until after the court case(s) conclude. 2) This has a long, long way to run.
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 630
Likes: 856
|
Post by 09dolphin on May 18, 2019 9:38:44 GMT
As a very small investor ( 2 £50 investments in separate loans) I would just like to say that if FS had applied their own standards to this loan, specifically that they had physical control of the assets as they say they always do under their T&Cs, the "investors" may still have a problem but it wouldn't anything like the size the problem investors are experiencing at present.
What I want to know is why FS didn't apply their own T&Cs to this loan. This question is huge for me as there was no warning that FS were breaching their own T&Cs at the time of the loan but they obviously made a decision to do this. Why was the decision made, who was involved and so on.
Finally, as FS have broken their own T&Cs do they have sufficient resources to stay solvent if investors decide to sue to recover their losses?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,571
|
Post by Mousey on May 18, 2019 10:23:32 GMT
What I want to know is why FS didn't apply their own T&Cs to this loan. Because the person who introduced the borrower to FS was a wealthy person connected to the entertainment industry and promised lots more introductions. The borrower is from quite a wealthy family so the expectation was there was no way the loans would default. One would assume the director who agreed loans 1 - 3 over boozy lunches quite enjoyed the idea of further lunches and wealthy clients - in fact I have recently obtained CCTV footage of Mr Lux from the first lunch time meeting:
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on May 18, 2019 10:35:40 GMT
i.e. they were greedy, stupid, naive and crassly incompetent?
The last "update" has done nothing to allay my concerns so wait to be proven incorrect...
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on May 18, 2019 10:51:16 GMT
As a very small investor ( 2 £50 investments in separate loans) I would just like to say that if FS had applied their own standards to this loan, specifically that they had physical control of the assets as they say they always do under their T&Cs, the "investors" may still have a problem but it wouldn't anything like the size the problem investors are experiencing at present. What I want to know is why FS didn't apply their own T&Cs to this loan. This question is huge for me as there was no warning that FS were breaching their own T&Cs at the time of the loan but they obviously made a decision to do this. Why was the decision made, who was involved and so on. Finally, as FS have broken their own T&Cs do they have sufficient resources to stay solvent if investors decide to sue to recover their losses?Unlikely, I would say. Accounts for y/e 3/18 wouldn't suggest they have the kinds of reserves required so unless they've had a reeeeeeaaally good trading period since, I think the petty cash tin may be found wanting. Plus a new charge over the company would suggest someone else has first dibs, but I'm waiting to see if fundingsecure make an announcement (by way of a press release and/or in their newsletter) as to what changes may be afoot organisationally.
|
|
jj
Member of DD Central
Jolly Jammy
Posts: 320
Likes: 358
|
Post by jj on May 18, 2019 11:53:16 GMT
As a very small investor ( 2 £50 investments in separate loans) I would just like to say that if FS had applied their own standards to this loan, specifically that they had physical control of the assets as they say they always do under their T&Cs, the "investors" may still have a problem but it wouldn't anything like the size the problem investors are experiencing at present. What I want to know is why FS didn't apply their own T&Cs to this loan. This question is huge for me as there was no warning that FS were breaching their own T&Cs at the time of the loan but they obviously made a decision to do this. Why was the decision made, who was involved and so on. Finally, as FS have broken their own T&Cs do they have sufficient resources to stay solvent if investors decide to sue to recover their losses? If you take the Corporation tax element over the last two years it suggest a profit of over £1,000,000 per year.
This does not include any pension payment which the director or employee's could have used so the actual profit figure could be higher.
Therefore FS would probably have some leeway to sort out some legal action such as this loan. Of course there are more than one problem loan!
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on May 18, 2019 12:19:29 GMT
What I want to know is why FS didn't apply their own T&Cs to this loan. Because the person who introduced the borrower to FS was a wealthy person connected to the entertainment industry and promised lots more introductions. The borrower is from quite a wealthy family so the expectation was there was no way the loans would default. One would assume the director who agreed loans 1 - 3 over boozy lunches quite enjoyed the idea of further lunches and wealthy clients - in fact I have recently obtained CCTV footage of Mr Lux from the first lunch time meeting:
GO Mousey !!! [ MASSIVE thumbs up emoticonS here.] United we stand!!!!!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on May 18, 2019 14:24:50 GMT
interested in the above - I understand basic accounts but not sure how p2p companies deal with client loans etc. In the accounts I am looking at (31 March 2018) corporation tax is under £200K so I guess this is 19% of profit? But there is also recoverable corporation tax so I am getting lost here as not sure if the corporation tax has been overpaid. I also note cash in hand is down by over £1m from 2017 to 2018 i.e about 35% and given the large number of defaulted loans and legal action recently I too worry about the size of the petty cash tin but I am not an accountant so that is only my opinion and may be rubbish, Below is an interesting article about how some bankrupts cheat the system - I really wonder if FS had proper checks in place to search out such characters...I have a horrible feeling we are soon going to find out! www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42597623
|
|
henryjford
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 139
|
Post by henryjford on Jun 3, 2019 8:00:38 GMT
What I want to know is why FS didn't apply their own T&Cs to this loan. Because the person who introduced the borrower to FS was a wealthy person connected to the entertainment industry and promised lots more introductions. The borrower is from quite a wealthy family so the expectation was there was no way the loans would default. One would assume the director who agreed loans 1 - 3 over boozy lunches quite enjoyed the idea of further lunches and wealthy clients - in fact I have recently obtained CCTV footage of Mr Lux from the first lunch time meeting:
Mousey you rule!!
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 18, 2019 10:14:55 GMT
My mistake. I did it quick and dirty via a SUMIF function and the asterisks led to wrong calculations, as it was recognized by excel as wildcards. I did in a "cleaner way" with pivot table this time and we are 40 individuals to be exposed to £10k or above. I hope this time around it's correct C**********d 565000 r*********g 204425 g*****e 55475 B**r 40750 i****e 39375 b************A 39125 h*********A 37025 r*************A 34950 i***********r 29075 l*******d 26925 i************2 25100 r*******t 24000 A*********A 23600 A********A 22000 f*********A 21800 L**********A 20475 k******4 18000 o******3 17275 D*******d 17250 B****e 17000 a***********A 14875 i************A 14825 s***********A 14600 A**********A 14200 c*******m 13400 C*****y 13325 r**********e 13275 H********4 12600 C***********A 12500 m********A 11675 s****5 10925 T***********A 10700 b**o 10600 p***********A 10525 i***************A 10400 E***********A 10100 l********************m 10000 w*******8 10000 b****n 10000 b********t 10000 I will remove the previous list as it was wrong. It does not change much the first two guys though... (or me for that matter). PS : If two people have exactly the same anonymized pseudonym, it might also lead to a mistake (but it should be minimal) Kyrios - your analysis is no longer possible unless you've saved copies of the loan listings, the site now shows only the last ten most recent investments for all loans. Makes you wonder if that investor* with £565k stuck in the art loans isn't "CenturionLtd" *just to clarify I don't necessarily mean individual but entity, which could include Ltd companies, syndicates, institutional backers etc.
|
|
henryjford
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 139
|
Post by henryjford on Jun 18, 2019 17:42:53 GMT
... - The defendant submitted an adjournment application dated 4 March 2019. - The Court considers it appropriate to give the Defendant a further opportunity to purge his contempt - It is ordered that the Claimant’s committal application is adjourned to 10.30 am on 31 July 2019 - Although before 31 July 2019, the Claimant (FS) (a) may apply to restore the committal hearing on 24 hours’ notice to the Defendant; and (b) may apply without notice to issue a bench warrant for the Defendant’s arrest. - The Defendant shall submit to cross-examination by the Claimant, either (a) in person at Court if he is fit to do so; or (b) from Spain by video link - The Defendant’s cross-examination shall have a time estimate of 1 day and shall take place before Mr Justice A***** on a date to be agreed between 3 June 2019 and 17 July 2019. It might be worth noting the defendant has previously been ordered to appear and did not show up.
... - Although before 31 July 2019, the Claimant (FS) (a) may apply to restore the committal hearing on 24 hours’ notice to the Defendant; and (b) may apply without notice to issue a bench warrant for the Defendant’s arrest. Either of these been acted on? Is it in our interest to push fs to act, should they act?
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 630
Likes: 856
|
Post by 09dolphin on Jun 18, 2019 19:49:16 GMT
- Although before 31 July 2019, the Claimant (FS) (a) may apply to restore the committal hearing on 24 hours’ notice to the Defendant; and (b) may apply without notice to issue a bench warrant for the Defendant’s arrest. Either of these been acted on? Is it in our interest to push fs to act, should they act? I really don't know the answer but it would be good to know the rational behind FSs reasoning for their lack of action, even if it is in a "confidential" email. Of course FS may not have a rational which wouldn't be a surprise to me given their conduct in their loan management over the past 3 - 4 years.
|
|