blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 9, 2019 19:35:21 GMT
There was a message which informed us of possible separate treatments for 67/68 and the other four, which I thought a good thing. The newco you mention is still in play for the other four loans - though we have not have the details and those loans are still with the same borrowers. The assets acquired by the newco you mention are not specified (the words need careful reading) but will include assets which were the security for loans from another platform. 67 and 68 are loans to a particular borrower which still exists and which owns the asset still, with charges to ABL lenders. How could it be otherwise? As far as we know the newco you mention will not be involved in the future of 67 & 68, unless by lease or contract. This plan for 67&68 cannot be done in parts. Its feasibility depends on the availability of the funding, which is not a given.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by macq on Aug 9, 2019 20:31:06 GMT
There was a message which informed us of possible separate treatments for 67/68 and the other four, which I thought a good thing. The newco you mention is still in play for the other four loans - though we have not have the details and those loans are still with the same borrowers. The assets acquired by the newco you mention are not specified (the words need careful reading) but will include assets which were the security for loans from another platform. 67 and 68 are loans to a particular borrower which still exists and which owns the asset still, with charges to ABL lenders. How could it be otherwise? As far as we know the newco you mention will not be involved in the future of 67 & 68, unless by lease or contract. This plan for 67&68 cannot be done in parts. Its feasibility depends on the availability of the funding, which is not a given. thanks - between you and the administrator's progress report on Startermode at CH last month i think i'm there
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Aug 10, 2019 16:28:55 GMT
Wouldn't it be helpful to know what sort of region the 'substantial loss' would be if sold as is? Is it a case of a substantial loss for #68 or is there also a substantial loss for #67?
As a holder of #67 do I have any say in having a £460k charge placed ahead of me?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 10, 2019 17:02:45 GMT
Ablrate must consider that their proposal is in your best interests. (I have a very small holding in 68)
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by macq on Aug 11, 2019 8:22:55 GMT
the bad news is i'm confused again in the admin note for 67 on the 14/5/19 the update says a new lease arrangement with a new company is agreed and an agreement between B********R and the landlord is agreed.With this agreement it says they have gone back with a formal purchase request Also - it may have come up elsewhere so apologies if it has but the admin note in Feb just refers to the majority of the B* assets being acquired by a major creditor.But unless i'm mistaken online searches mention the deal & creditor by name and its a company we all know so why not just say that name in the admin note?
the good news is so far ABL have been better then probably any other company in chasing defaults,workarounds,admin notes etc but i think i am getting to the point where i realise self select loans on any platform are to headache inducing for me
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 11, 2019 10:46:14 GMT
The business property is part freehold and part leasehold, and the charge is on the freehold part, which is still the property of the borrower in administration, as far as I know. Have a read of the original borrowing proposal for 67, the basis of the business valuation done for the borrower, and the accounts of the borrower at 31 Jul 2107 - particularly the valuation of the investment property given in note 3 (these accounts are later, filed 2018). The info is all there in the documents, and I would say that Ablrate was fair in giving full information to lenders at the time of proposal, and providing updates. The trouble is that the full information takes some navigating and analysis. You should put questions of value and your views straight to ablrate by email.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Aug 11, 2019 16:15:28 GMT
Ablrate must consider that their proposal is in your best interests. (I have a very small holding in 68) Perhaps, but they may consider this course of action is the only way to get any sort of recovery for holders of #68 which may not be in the best interests of #67. I am really not a fan of these multi tranche, different ranking/rate loans. It creates a nasty conflict of interest for the platform in my view.
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Aug 16, 2019 19:59:09 GMT
Now that #67 & #68 are to be treated differently from the rest of the BN loan restructuring. I suggest that we have a new thread here to solely discuss 67/68.
LW
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 16, 2019 20:56:33 GMT
Now that #67 & #68 are to be treated differently from the rest of the BN loan restructuring. I suggest that we have a new thread here to solely discuss 67/68. LW Most of pages 30 and 31 of the other thread are specifically about the separate proposed treatment of 67&68. Do you want the relevant posts moved here? You are probably right that the paths are now separate, since it appears that B---K-- A-- are nor making an offer that Ablrate wishes to put forward. However, if the proposal does not fly - and it is not a given by any means - then they may all join up again.
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Aug 16, 2019 21:08:39 GMT
Now that #67 & #68 are to be treated differently from the rest of the BN loan restructuring. I suggest that we have a new thread here to solely discuss 67/68. LW Most of pages 30 and 31 of the other thread are specifically about the separate proposed treatment of 67&68. Do you want the relevant posts moved here? You are probably right that the paths are now separate, since it appears that B---K-- A-- are nor making an offer that Ablrate wishes to put forward. However, if the proposal does not fly - and it is not a given by any means - then they may all join up again.
No I'm not suggesting selectively moving older 67/68 comments in here - As a moderator on another forum I know what a right royal PITA that could be to implement. I could only see re-joining the two threads if 67/68 were to be restructured in exactly the same way as the others which I suggest would be unlikely. LW
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 16, 2019 21:11:39 GMT
Ablrate must consider that their proposal is in your best interests. (I have a very small holding in 68) Perhaps, but they may consider this course of action is the only way to get any sort of recovery for holders of #68 which may not be in the best interests of #67. I am really not a fan of these multi tranche, different ranking/rate loans. It creates a nasty conflict of interest for the platform in my view. I think it would have to be in the best interests of 67, without regard to 68, which is a second charge where the holders have had more interest paid and considerable capital returned. These are separate loans, and lenders chose which one they wanted. Similarly a further loan would have to stand on its own merits, without any consideration of the interests of the lenders of 67&68. We are not 'all in it together'. (This post needs moving if this thread is split).
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Aug 17, 2019 6:13:13 GMT
Perhaps, but they may consider this course of action is the only way to get any sort of recovery for holders of #68 which may not be in the best interests of #67. I am really not a fan of these multi tranche, different ranking/rate loans. It creates a nasty conflict of interest for the platform in my view. I think it would have to be in the best interests of 67, without regard to 68, which is a second charge where the holders have had more interest paid and considerable capital returned. These are separate loans, and lenders chose which one they wanted. Similarly a further loan would have to stand on its own merits, without any consideration of the interests of the lenders of 67&68. We are not 'all in it together'. (This post needs moving if this thread is split).
Yes but that's my point. Is it in the best interest of 67? We don't have the information either way. My issue is the new loan will stand ahead of both 67 and 68 in the repayment stakes without holders of 67 or 68 giving consent. That may lead to a bigger loss for both 67 and 68. It may be that it is best for all concerned, I would just like to know the numbers involved (ie the expected recoveries if sold now) before having to accept this. I have emailed ABL but no reply.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 17, 2019 8:19:40 GMT
If they restructure loan 67 unilaterally, then they must be able to demonstrate that this should give you a better result than a straight default and asset sale. You can ask them to justify that to you. If they decide to offer a new third loan, then the plan to restructure 67 will presumably be conditional upon gaining the funds from the new loan. The proposal for the new loan would have to expose all the information about the liabilities and assets of the borrower, which I guess would include the information you are after. It is important to give Ablrate credit for the extraordinary work they put into seeking imaginative ways of preserving the lenders' principal. Most platforms, perhaps after a long period of inactivity, would have just defaulted these loans and allowed the asset to be sold for whatever could be obtained, reducing their own work and staff cost.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 17, 2019 9:09:29 GMT
I think it would have to be in the best interests of 67, without regard to 68, which is a second charge where the holders have had more interest paid and considerable capital returned. These are separate loans, and lenders chose which one they wanted. Similarly a further loan would have to stand on its own merits, without any consideration of the interests of the lenders of 67&68. We are not 'all in it together'. (This post needs moving if this thread is split).
Yes but that's my point. Is it in the best interest of 67? We don't have the information either way. My issue is the new loan will stand ahead of both 67 and 68 in the repayment stakes without holders of 67 or 68 giving consent. That may lead to a bigger loss for both 67 and 68. It may be that it is best for all concerned, I would just like to know the numbers involved (ie the expected recoveries if sold now) before having to accept this. I have emailed ABL but no reply. I agree that we should have access to the pertinent information to see the basis on which ABL have arrived at their decision. The legal situation is complicated by the separation of legal charges and deed of priority. I can't see how ABL could justify a decision that would not be in the best interests of the 1st charge holder, i.e. 67, surely if that were the case they'd of failed in their duty as agent (the fact that there may be a bigger overall loss is immaterial)? The separation of the charges would have influenced lenders original decision to invest. The situation being different to that on FS where one charge is registered and subordination is handled internally to the platform. In that case the emphasis is on maximising the return to the legal charge holder, which may result in a lower return for those holding the FS first charge. I guess this complication will prevent ABL from holding a vote(s). Holders of 67 could vote on the basis of the current valuation or even whether to accept the best offer following a period of marketing. I wonder if this will influence the decision to register separate charges for future loans?
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 17, 2019 9:49:12 GMT
For those without DDC access... there's an article dated 16th July on WalesOnline showing the current poor state of the asset.
|
|