ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on May 28, 2020 15:30:25 GMT
How interesting - meanwhile the auction house will doubtless charge a withdrawal fee, the administrators will swap legal letters at great expense and the loan investors are kept waiting. I get the impression the administrators are really not happy about the situation - I suspect they have done the right thing and uncovered something of interest. Would be interested to know, as a general principle, why adminstrators would choose to do this. Not sure if the administrators can take direct control of this asset? |I thought they could but having done a bit of internet research my brain is hurting... Well I wonder how much this has delayed things I thank you - stay healthy all I would assume that the administrator of the borrower, who's job is to rescue the company as a going concern or maximise returns for creditors, wants the opportunity to review the situation prior to the disposal of what appears to be the company's sole asset of value. It could be that on a quick viewing he does not consider that sufficient work has been done to establish the market value of the asset and that there is a danger it may be being sold to cheaply. Edit A receiver's role is solely to recover the debt owed, there is therefore no requirement to consider options that may yield greater returns to the borrower than merely the repayment of the debt. eg building out I would suspect at least 8 weeks delay so the administrator can prepare his proposals. Edit I cant find any clear statement on the relationship between a mortgagee in possession and an administrator. It could be that if the FS administrators took possession there would be the same issue.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on May 28, 2020 18:03:42 GMT
I think you mean "too cheaply" - surely the auctioneers aren't totally clueless and I think they priced it about right and it may have gone for more than estimate at the auction . I am in this business and I sure would not pay around £2m for the site as I like to buy below market value and there are numerous problems when taking on work started by somebody else.
The timing seems a bit of a coincidence to me so i just wonder what is going on here - short of a complicated deal to finish the development before sale I would have thought an auction was the best road to go down. They could have set a reserve so it did not have to be given away. In short I am not convinced the reason is that not enough work has been done to value the site - as I have said before it is a developer's nightmare to run out of money before a project is finished as ,generally, there is no way on this planet the construction costs will be covered in a fire-sale and there are numerous.
As an aside I looked at the auctions results- to me, property prices seems to be holding up pretty well and better than I expected which I guess is good news for we investors...
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Jun 17, 2020 3:24:47 GMT
Back in auction on 16th July, according to latest C&G update.
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Jul 10, 2020 10:43:52 GMT
Still up for auction this coming Thursday - unless the borrower forces another legal challenge.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Jul 16, 2020 11:23:17 GMT
Auction ended, no bids.
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Jul 16, 2020 11:23:26 GMT
Auction just closed - no bids.
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Jul 16, 2020 11:24:02 GMT
Snap! So what happened to the two interested parties in May? Has the borrower put another Spaniard in the works?
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Aug 29, 2020 7:16:42 GMT
Update on the site:
"The property did not sell at auction, but the Receivers received various subsequent offers, the highest being £1.**m. Both the agents and the Receivers have recommended that this offer be accepted, and this is now proceeding. There is an issue with the removal of a historical entry at Land Registry, which the solicitors are dealing with. We will provide a further update in due course."
With £150k over from the FS tranches, we may get back approaching 100% of our capital, depending on fees etc. Interest, I'm more doubtful.
|
|
markyg61
Member of DD Central
Posts: 340
Likes: 237
|
Post by markyg61 on Nov 17, 2020 16:11:56 GMT
UPDATE: The property has been sold by receivers and the funds received.
Investors will receive approximately 88.6% of capital.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 17, 2020 17:21:49 GMT
Total Capital lent on this one was £1,699,000
Update from 28/08/2020: "The property did not sell at auction, but the Receivers received various subsequent offers, the highest being £1.85m."
Today's update:
Note1: Discrepancy between the sum disclosed on the 28/08 update and the Sale Proceeds figure in the breakdown. (Although the Auctioneers fee does tie in with Breakdown sale price.)
Note2: CG have, as usual taken their 3% from the 'Net Receipts' figure. FS have taken their 5% from the Total Received figure; which is admittedly better than taking t from the Capital Lent figure, but once again shows remarkable inconsistency.
Note3: 'Total Costs' have come in at c. 10% of the Sale Proceeds figure, which is in line with other recoveries, but one does wonder to what degree fees are inflated to meet a £-value on the realisation that if it is under a %-value, it is unlikely to be challenged. There has to be a point where there is no significant additional work required for £2m sale as a £1m sale.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 17, 2020 20:39:46 GMT
thanks for above - totally agree
I also note
I presume CNC is the conveyancing company? a tad under £2K strikes me as a lot especially as I presume the searches were done when FS advanced the money ?
I really don't like being thrown general figures that can't be verified...as for FS getting over £90K - don't get me started!
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 17, 2020 21:58:09 GMT
Note1: Discrepancy between the sum disclosed on the 28/08 update and the Sale Proceeds figure in the breakdown. (Although the Auctioneers fee does tie in with Breakdown sale price.) A further update has been added: That's OK, Mr Administrator. What's £45k between friends? Talking of friends, what would be friendly is if CG/FS recognise that Lenders have already coughed up in excess of £160,000 for third-parties to do the heavy lifting in the course of recovering this loan, and that being charged a further £140,000 to have the pleasure of you guys overseeing events is ... well ... it's really not that pleasurable. How about doing the decent thing and instead of deducting directly from Lenders, deduct CG's charges from FS' fees? Coincidentally, that would cover the £45k "inconvenience" quite nicely, thank you.
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Nov 18, 2020 6:31:45 GMT
So £90k goes to the failed company through which we invested (or should I say threw away) our money. Nice.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 25, 2020 11:29:13 GMT
The Borrower's Administrators' Proposal doc has just surfaced at Companies House. As a reminder, the Borrower appointed an Administrator at the back end of May 2020, after FS/ CG had appointed Receivers to realise the security in Feb.
Consequently, the Proposal doc is signed mid-July 2020 and as a fair bit has happened since that doc was prepared - including sale of the security post-Auction for a sum of £1.8m - so I have only skim read the contents.
The following section stands out as a possible example of 'too many cooks spoiling the broth' ....
Accepting that the following observations need to be tempered with an acknowledgement that this is only one party's version of events, the above doesn't read like there was a particularly cohesive effort taking place.
Part 5.12 in particular reads as a notably adversarial comment and I can start to understand why Borrowers are challenging Administrators and Receivers if there is any suggestion - regardless of actual evidence - that a better outcome might have been achieved if one or more parties had acted differently.
In my naïve position as a mere simpleton, I have to wonder why the FS/CG Receivers were kept in place. Had they been stood down, it would have (potentially) been one less cook to 'spoil the broth' and certainly one less set of fees which would need to be covered. Whilst it's understood those Receivers would have been representing FS as a Secured Creditor, why couldn't CG undertake that role and liaise with the Borrower's Administrators?
Isn't that what CG's 2.5% fee is supposed to cover??
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 25, 2020 11:45:15 GMT
thanks for the above - agreed looks to me that there are far too many cooks here - and I am not convinced the £2.4m offer should have not been accepted - surely there could have been something arranged for this to complete - £500k on a £2.4m purchase seems a lot to me!
|
|