r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Oct 15, 2019 14:33:49 GMT
fundingsecure can we please have an urgent update concerning the ramifications of the consent order that was granted on 2nd October 2019?
What is the significance of the figure £2,908,987.74 and why is the borrower allowed to remove from the country assets of value above this amount?
I would get onto live help and ask but I know I will be fobbed off and I'm getting to the point where I am going to be rude, very very rude. I wonder if the borrower is running rings around FS? Could such a thing be possible I wonder? Do borrowers ever run rings around FS? Surely not!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 15, 2019 15:17:34 GMT
I have posted an interesting link about this character etc in FS DD uppet
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 15, 2019 16:14:45 GMT
Whilst waiting for a response from fundingsecure to the consent order another order was made today. I note the misspelling of 'Property' in the order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. BL-2018-****** BUSINESS AND PROPERT COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES BUSINESS LIST (ChD) Before: Lord Justice A***** 15 October 2019 B E T W E E N:- FUNDINGSECURE LTD Applicant/Claimant And ****** ***** Respondent/Defendant CONSENT ORDER Before Lord Justice A***** sitting at the High Court of Justice, this 15 day of October 2019 UPON reading a letter from the Applicant’s Solicitor BY CONSENT it is hereby ordered that:- 1. The Committal Hearing listed in the window between 15-17 October 2019 be vacated. 2. The matter be set down on the next available date after 9 December 2019.3. No order as to costs.
|
|
henryjford
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 139
|
Post by henryjford on Oct 21, 2019 12:10:29 GMT
Whilst waiting for a response from fundingsecure to the consent order another order was made today. I note the misspelling of 'Property' in the order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. BL-2018-****** BUSINESS AND PROPERT COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES BUSINESS LIST (ChD) Before: Lord Justice A***** 15 October 2019 B E T W E E N:- FUNDINGSECURE LTD Applicant/Claimant And ****** ***** Respondent/Defendant CONSENT ORDER Before Lord Justice A***** sitting at the High Court of Justice, this 15 day of October 2019 UPON reading a letter from the Applicant’s Solicitor BY CONSENT it is hereby ordered that:- 1. The Committal Hearing listed in the window between 15-17 October 2019 be vacated. 2. The matter be set down on the next available date after 9 December 2019.3. No order as to costs. Thank you Mousey. I have sent 3 emails to fundingsecure, from the beginning of Oct and received no acknowledgement or response. I am beyond mad at this outfit. How dare they ignore my concerns. And YES I will continue to take this matter further. There is no way I will 'move on'. Outrageous attitudes.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 1,167
|
Post by travolta on Oct 23, 2019 20:42:24 GMT
Well that's that. I wonder if we will ever know the grand finale or maybe the Spanish Holiday will last forever.
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Oct 28, 2019 13:24:35 GMT
I’m not really sure what was being fought through the courts, but will anyone keep up our side of the fight now that FS has taken the coward’s way out and folded the company. Is there any chance that we would get any of our money back and/or this guy would ever face any justice for committing a multi million pound fraud. Damn, if fraud is this easy and consequence free then I think we’re sending out the wrong message when we say crime doesn’t pay.
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Nov 4, 2019 8:56:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by defaultinator5000 on Nov 4, 2019 10:33:31 GMT
I’m not really sure what was being fought through the courts, but will anyone keep up our side of the fight now that FS has taken the coward’s way out and folded the company. Is there any chance that we would get any of our money back and/or this guy would ever face any justice for committing a multi million pound fraud. Damn, if fraud is this easy and consequence free then I think we’re sending out the wrong message when we say crime doesn’t pay. I would not say the last administration were cowards for folding the company - they simply recognized that the state is irrepparable and cut their losses, a perfectly rational decision. The cowardly behaviour was perpetrated by those before them who originated these abysmal loans and then flogged the company to someone else when the true state of the loan book became apparent to them.
In any case, I believe the best course of action would be to take out a p2p loan against the whole of FS's loan book on another platform. LTV would be limited to 70% and interest would continue to accure until redemption. Who could turn down such an amazing investment opportunity?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 4, 2019 11:41:09 GMT
I have a horrible feeling about this one - I seem to recall FS asked for a delay which puzzled me at the time. I am wondering if they knew they were going t*ts up and decided not to pay for any more legal counsel and leave that to the administrators? Can we ask the administrators if they are going to carry on with the legal action. I really hope so but they guy is a "mentally ill" (course he is) and bust (on paper) and in Spain (not too sick to organise that and pay for such "treatment").
I really hope I am wrong but I am extremely worried.
If the money is lost we should ensure these directors are bought to book and are banned from holding directorships - hopefully they are on credit companies "red lists" I would say blacklists but in theory these don't exist although they very much do.
Don't forget "organic growth -it's a process"...
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 4, 2019 11:56:10 GMT
I have a horrible feeling about this one - I seem to recall FS asked for a delay which puzzled me at the time. I am wondering if they knew they were going t*ts up and decided not to pay for any more legal counsel and leave that to the administrators? Can we ask the administrators if they are going to carry on with the legal action. I really hope so but they guy is a "mentally ill" (course he is) and bust (on paper) and in Spain (not too sick to organise that and pay for such "treatment"). I really hope I am wrong but I am extremely worried. If the money is lost we should ensure these directors are bought to book and are banned from holding directorships - hopefully they are on credit companies "red lists" I would say blacklists but in theory these don't exist although they very much do. Don't forget "organic growth -it's a process"... Adrian - I would be amazed if Administrators pursued this case. Firstly they owe a duty to creditors of the company and investors I believe are not creditors (no matter what other people say on this forum, I think legally we definitely are not). I believe the administrators are under no obligation to pursue any investor debts on investors behalf. Secondly even if we were creditors I am not sure they would pursue the case, administrators are under a statutory duty to act efficiently. I think it would be totally reasonable for the administrator to conclude that as the case is complicated, the guy is seemingly bust, that the proportionate thing to do is to not take the case further. Even if they did decide to pursue the case, how will this be financed, it for sure wont be from the administrators pocket. FS had at least some incentive to tell investors that we are doing our best, the administrators have no incentive to keep FS investors happy at all. In fact they may decide to totally wipe their hands clean of us, and say sorry investors not our problem. As I have previously said if people think that the administrators are going to diligently manage the loan book on behalf on investors, I think people are making a huge error of judgement. They are under no obligation to do this, and from previous dealings I have found administrators ruthless and will work to the letter of the law and no more. What we really need is for the FCA to tell what the plan is they approved for the loanbook to be managed in the case of the demise of FS. If it was for the administrators to handle it, this was always a flawed plan. Maybe there is a good plan, let's hope. But it is the FCA we have to hold to account here, not the administrators. The Administrators are only doing the job of winding up FS as a company. They owe investors nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Nov 4, 2019 12:33:16 GMT
I have a horrible feeling about this one - I seem to recall FS asked for a delay which puzzled me at the time. I am wondering if they knew they were going t*ts up and decided not to pay for any more legal counsel and leave that to the administrators? Can we ask the administrators if they are going to carry on with the legal action. I really hope so but they guy is a "mentally ill" (course he is) and bust (on paper) and in Spain (not too sick to organise that and pay for such "treatment"). I really hope I am wrong but I am extremely worried. If the money is lost we should ensure these directors are bought to book and are banned from holding directorships - hopefully they are on credit companies "red lists" I would say blacklists but in theory these don't exist although they very much do. Don't forget "organic growth -it's a process"... Adrian - I would be amazed if Administrators pursued this case. Firstly they owe a duty to creditors of the company and investors I believe are not creditors (no matter what other people say on this forum, I think legally we definitely are not). I believe the administrators are under no obligation to pursue any investor debts on investors behalf. Secondly even if we were creditors I am not sure they would pursue the case, administrators are under a statutory duty to act efficiently. I think it would be totally reasonable for the administrator to conclude that as the case is complicated, the guy is seemingly bust, that the proportionate thing to do is to not take the case further. Even if they did decide to pursue the case, how will this be financed, it for sure wont be from the administrators pocket. FS had at least some incentive to tell investors that we are doing our best, the administrators have no incentive to keep FS investors happy at all. In fact they may decide to totally wipe their hands clean of us, and say sorry investors not our problem. As I have previously said if people think that the administrators are going to diligently manage the loan book on behalf on investors, I think people are making a huge error of judgement. They are under no obligation to do this, and from previous dealings I have found administrators ruthless and will work to the letter of the law and no more. What we really need is for the FCA to tell what the plan is they approved for the loanbook to be managed in the case of the demise of FS. If it was for the administrators to handle it, this was always a flawed plan. Maybe there is a good plan, let's hope. But it is the FCA we have to hold to account here, not the administrators. The Administrators are only doing the job of winding up FS as a company. They owe investors nothing. Well, cynically speaking, surely it is in the Administrators' interest to keep the process going for as long as possible so as to collect more fees. Anyways, I don't know what the probability is to recover any money from that borrower, but - if the chances are high enough to make the process worthwhile - it should be possible to agree with the lawyers a success-dependant fee (a percentage of the recovered amount). That would solve the problem of having to fund an expensive legal process, while not ceasing to pursue it if worthwhile.
|
|
petrichory
Member of DD Central
Posts: 59
Likes: 207
|
Post by petrichory on Nov 4, 2019 13:01:17 GMT
I have a horrible feeling about this one - I seem to recall FS asked for a delay which puzzled me at the time. I am wondering if they knew they were going t*ts up and decided not to pay for any more legal counsel and leave that to the administrators? Can we ask the administrators if they are going to carry on with the legal action. I really hope so but they guy is a "mentally ill" (course he is) and bust (on paper) and in Spain (not too sick to organise that and pay for such "treatment"). I really hope I am wrong but I am extremely worried. If the money is lost we should ensure these directors are bought to book and are banned from holding directorships - hopefully they are on credit companies "red lists" I would say blacklists but in theory these don't exist although they very much do. Don't forget "organic growth -it's a process"... Adrian - I would be amazed if Administrators pursued this case. Firstly they owe a duty to creditors of the company and investors I believe are not creditors (no matter what other people say on this forum, I think legally we definitely are not). I believe the administrators are under no obligation to pursue any investor debts on investors behalf. Secondly even if we were creditors I am not sure they would pursue the case, administrators are under a statutory duty to act efficiently. I think it would be totally reasonable for the administrator to conclude that as the case is complicated, the guy is seemingly bust, that the proportionate thing to do is to not take the case further. Even if they did decide to pursue the case, how will this be financed, it for sure wont be from the administrators pocket. FS had at least some incentive to tell investors that we are doing our best, the administrators have no incentive to keep FS investors happy at all. In fact they may decide to totally wipe their hands clean of us, and say sorry investors not our problem. As I have previously said if people think that the administrators are going to diligently manage the loan book on behalf on investors, I think people are making a huge error of judgement. They are under no obligation to do this, and from previous dealings I have found administrators ruthless and will work to the letter of the law and no more. What we really need is for the FCA to tell what the plan is they approved for the loanbook to be managed in the case of the demise of FS. If it was for the administrators to handle it, this was always a flawed plan. Maybe there is a good plan, let's hope. But it is the FCA we have to hold to account here, not the administrators. The Administrators are only doing the job of winding up FS as a company. They owe investors nothing. Of all the loans you could have possibly picked where fraud has entitled lenders to become de-facto creditors of the company, you are choosing the strongest possible case - the arts loans - to say that lenders are not entitled to anything? The courts have already determined that fraud did occur, that the defendant is not credible and in contempt. The defendant can be jailed at any time should the court, at the behest of the plaintiff, choose to enforce this judgement. There is absolutely no doubt that lenders were defrauded here and FundingSecure as a company is liable. The option to enforce this judgement is open to the administrators (as lawful representatives) even if they fail to honour the unsecured lawyers fees that helped this to come about. In other words, given that the legwork has already been done and a legally enforceable judgement obtained at no expense to CG & Co, why would they suddenly drop everything - would this be in the best interest of creditors? No, of course it would not be. In your scenario, you are describing the prerogative of the Administrators that is like a venture capital fund picking through the carcass of an acquisition, being able to pick and choose what obligations they want to honour and which ones get discarded by the wayside. True, this would be the case if there had been no foul play, no deliberate mismanagement and all debts were unsecured. However, the fact that this business was entirely based on SECURED debts throws this conventional narrative out the window, by virtue of debts not being secured the sceptre of fraud and criminal negligence overrides any prerogative for the CG & Co to simply "wipe their hands clean of us" as you stated. A fundamental aspect of Administrators is to look into the mismanagement of the previous executives and recommend them for prosecution or disqualification - there are a litany of examples for this, FundingSecure clearly traded while insolvent and even released new products while insolvent, which should disqualify all of the "new" management, let alone all the old cronies who strung us up to begin with.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 4, 2019 13:24:33 GMT
Well this is an interesting one with varied opinions - happy for people to disagree with me.
As I said hopefully we can ask the administrators for a definitive answer My research agrees with the above in blue - I am no expert but sadly I agree with Pip or to put it technically we loan holders are stuffed good and proper...
Don't forget "Organic growth - it's a process"
Better sign off here before I say something that will get me a life-time forum ban!
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 4, 2019 13:43:58 GMT
Adrian - I would be amazed if Administrators pursued this case. Firstly they owe a duty to creditors of the company and investors I believe are not creditors (no matter what other people say on this forum, I think legally we definitely are not). I believe the administrators are under no obligation to pursue any investor debts on investors behalf. Secondly even if we were creditors I am not sure they would pursue the case, administrators are under a statutory duty to act efficiently. I think it would be totally reasonable for the administrator to conclude that as the case is complicated, the guy is seemingly bust, that the proportionate thing to do is to not take the case further. Even if they did decide to pursue the case, how will this be financed, it for sure wont be from the administrators pocket. FS had at least some incentive to tell investors that we are doing our best, the administrators have no incentive to keep FS investors happy at all. In fact they may decide to totally wipe their hands clean of us, and say sorry investors not our problem. As I have previously said if people think that the administrators are going to diligently manage the loan book on behalf on investors, I think people are making a huge error of judgement. They are under no obligation to do this, and from previous dealings I have found administrators ruthless and will work to the letter of the law and no more. What we really need is for the FCA to tell what the plan is they approved for the loanbook to be managed in the case of the demise of FS. If it was for the administrators to handle it, this was always a flawed plan. Maybe there is a good plan, let's hope. But it is the FCA we have to hold to account here, not the administrators. The Administrators are only doing the job of winding up FS as a company. They owe investors nothing. Of all the loans you could have possibly picked where fraud has entitled lenders to become de-facto creditors of the company, you are choosing the strongest possible case - the arts loans - to say that lenders are not entitled to anything? The courts have already determined that fraud did occur, that the defendant is not credible and in contempt. The defendant can be jailed at any time should the court, at the behest of the plaintiff, choose to enforce this judgement. There is absolutely no doubt that lenders were defrauded here and FundingSecure as a company is liable. The option to enforce this judgement is open to the administrators (as lawful representatives) even if they fail to honour the unsecured lawyers fees that helped this to come about. In other words, given that the legwork has already been done and a legally enforceable judgement obtained at no expense to CG & Co, why would they suddenly drop everything - would this be in the best interest of creditors? No, of course it would not be. In your scenario, you are describing the prerogative of the Administrators that is like a venture capital fund picking through the carcass of an acquisition, being able to pick and choose what obligations they want to honour and which ones get discarded by the wayside. True, this would be the case if there had been no foul play, no deliberate mismanagement and all debts were unsecured. However, the fact that this business was entirely based on SECURED debts throws this conventional narrative out the window, by virtue of debts not being secured the sceptre of fraud and criminal negligence overrides any prerogative for the CG & Co to simply "wipe their hands clean of us" as you stated. A fundamental aspect of Administrators is to look into the mismanagement of the previous executives and recommend them for prosecution or disqualification - there are a litany of examples for this, FundingSecure clearly traded while insolvent and even released new products while insolvent, which should disqualify all of the "new" management, let alone all the old cronies who strung us up to begin with. Thanks for your response. Unfortunately I disagree with your conclusions. Do I think investors would have a good claim against FS for them having been negligent when issuing this (and many other loans). Absolutely yes. However unfortunately "There is an automatic moratorium which means that it is not possible for a creditor to bring or pursue legal proceedings against the company or its assets" - see uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-385-3012?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) i.e. you are not a creditor by virtue of having a good legal case against the company. This may be unfair but this is the law. Therefore I really think the assumption that lenders are creditors is just not legally correct. Investors are not secured creditors of Funding Secure, but they had loans which were secured against third party assets. This does not make investors secured creditors of FS, even if FS was negligent in securing these loans. Legally I really don't think there is even an official relationship between the administrators and investors. The administrators sole aim is to manage the affairs of the company to efficiently achieve the best outcome for creditors. It is the FCA who signed off on FS' plan if it went out of business. I suggest we see what that says.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,244
Likes: 2,688
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 4, 2019 15:56:49 GMT
Unless it's all been paid for upfront, I think the administration (due to insolvency) will supersede any wind down plan and the administration will attempt to maximise returns for creditors. I would assume like Lendy they will try to dispose of outstanding loans where possible, by running to completion, selling on etc. and return amounts recovered to lenders (less fees).
|
|