jaswells
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 184
|
Post by jaswells on Sept 25, 2020 8:49:03 GMT
Yes, one of the sad aspects of Wellesley is that despite good customer services and strong communication throughout they have ultimately lined their pockets very nicely at the expense of investors. Their accounts have always revealed HUGE compensation for directors , even when there was no profitability in the company and now this exercise is purely a way to milk more from the company before its demise (instead of the administrators). It is a lose lose situation now for investors.
|
|
|
Post by johnsfield on Sept 25, 2020 9:19:34 GMT
some important info on major review site tr--st pil-t titled reject cva ! read now
|
|
|
Post by exbanker on Sept 25, 2020 11:52:37 GMT
What is the role of the Security Trustee - Wellesley Security Trustees Ltd ?
I am not invested here, just been watching from afar, so someone that is invested may want to check the small print as I am not party to that. But the Trustee must surely owe a duty of care to the Investors - thats its purpose. However, it is a related company with common directors who are active in its operation, so its debatable who's interests it will have at heart - a big weakness in my opinion with these platforms.
Noted that in recent times :- 1) The Security Trustee was party to the Loan Book Sale Agreement 2) Had provided a charge in February 2020 over a completed development site near Bath to ioseph Ltd - appears to be an unrelated entity - and that charge was satisfied at Companies House as recently as 20th Sept 2020. Is that just coincidental or were the directors of WF waiting on settlement of that prior to proposing the CVA. And secondly was that settled through an open market sale of the remaining assets in Bath or a fire sale to the chargeholder ?
I just think the Security Trustee has a responsibility to you, the Investors, even if thats not a legal one, then a moral one.............
p.s. it would be interesting to know if the Security Trustee is using separate advisers to Wellesley Finance. One would think it should be if it wants to give an air of independence. As I have previously noted Shoosmiths appear to have acted for WF with the loan book sale, based on their name being on the docs recently registered at Companies House, would be interesting to know if they also felt able to act for the Security Trustee
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Sept 25, 2020 14:49:30 GMT
I have voted. Quite a Monty Python experience if you vote no to the CVA, along the lines of 'are you sure, are you really sure, have you read the CVA, are you absolutely certain etc...'
One thing to watch out for, when you vote 'no' it very helpfully fills in the High Court notice of claim form for you but for me it put £1 in the "Total amount of claim as at 13 October 2020 in respect of the Company". Is that right? Doesn't seem right to me so I filled it in with my actual loss which it then included as a "disputed amount". It also puts £1 in the box "Total amount of interest owed on the claim as at 13 October 2020 in respect of the Company:"
I don't doubt the CVA will pass but I feel better for voting no.
|
|
|
Post by jonrgrant on Sept 25, 2020 14:51:01 GMT
No way will I vote to support / approve the immoral and what in time will be shown (if truth and legal justice exist in UK) to be an illegal removal of investment funds from investors accounts to line the pockets of failed already over self rewarded directors.
£100m loans are invested and working so over time will get repaid ! But the greed of Wellesley thinks by selling to itself for £50m and forcing investors to cover the £50m of gains to the Lord is acceptable. This must be stopped and raised at every and all levels as the “paupers no longer give life savings to the manor”, we are now educated also and have rights.
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Sept 25, 2020 15:10:37 GMT
some important info on major review site tr--st pil-t titled reject cva ! read now Some further posts there :
Utterly cynical and disagraceful behaviour by Wellesley as we all know the business was impaired long before Covid due to appalling mismanagement. ............... This is a thinly veiled attempt to 'rip off' investors and then start afresh so management gets all the upside a few short years down the line. It should be illegal and possibly is? Wellesley has basically 'cornered' investors on the premise that if the CVA is rejected they threaten to put the company into administration? What to do in the best interests of ALL Wellesley investors and what defensive actions can we take [e.g. legal class action] ?? ...................... ................... Wellesley have always been a <mod redacted> and some Investors were very late to realise that. Others were stuck with their investments until Maturity (as long as 5 years). They promised 1st Loss, a Provision fund and 'Skin in the Game' to lure the Investors in. Sad, it's the same story as in MoneyThing and similar to Lendy and Funding Secure. I think an Investors Group needs to be formed like that of Lendy and funding Secure to put collective pressure on Wellesley & FCA immediatley and failing that, a class Action.
|
|
up
Posts: 59
Likes: 62
|
Post by up on Sept 25, 2020 15:25:28 GMT
I believe the £1 business in the case of P2P investors is to do with not being direct creditors to the company hence why we are not listed by account and value in the creditors list. Instead we (P2P) are mere Compromised Contingent Creditors and the £1 is mentioned in 12.1. There is still a separate claim/entitlement on the loan parts - hence the platform value shown with / without CVA. Not claiming to have understood it - but the £1 in case of declining CVA may just be to give validity to the vote - probably weighted only at £1 vs the bond-holder amounts votes rendering it useless.
|
|
mogish
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 503
|
Post by mogish on Sept 25, 2020 15:51:57 GMT
For what its worth, my vote is now cast. I can only agree with all previous posters that cva approval will only rub salt into the already gaping wounds. The webinar was a thinly veiled attempt by directors to try to convince invstors that they were working for our best interests whilst continue flogging a dead horse to suck away the last avaible funds . I had requested early release many times (in 2018/19 when i started to feel all was not right)only to be rejected, luckily my losses in wl p2p products are fairly small compared to some bond investors.
|
|
|
Post by jonrgrant on Sept 25, 2020 16:18:06 GMT
One question I have regarding the action of casting a vote, which someone far more legally qualified than myself may be willing to answer.
if you strongly disagree with the process already progressed and being proposed and therefore against the proposal itself. Are you better to not vote at all, as the act of casting a vote, even if “no” could be argued / viewed as being in support of the process the company is proposing?
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Sept 25, 2020 16:47:53 GMT
I only have P2P (Classic) Loans, no Mini Bonds. I have the following options
A) If CVA is Rejected - £XXX
B1) If CVA is passed - £YYY paid over the next year B2) Or £YYY paid over the next 3 to 4 years
£YYY is the same figure which is approx 10% higher than £XXX.
I assume options B1 & B2 are same as none of my investments are in Mini-Bonds or Unsecured Property Mini Bonds ?
The Executive Summary gives the overall outcome which should tally with all your estimated Return.
|
|
|
Post by belladog on Sept 25, 2020 17:54:25 GMT
I’ve voted NO. Listening to Graham Wellseley telling me how sorry he was, with his mid-Atlantic accent, made me want to punch him on the nose. I’ve probably lost over £20000 and I’m just a regular Joe. He can afford to buy all of the debts at 50% but still rake in the whole amount of interest based on 100% of the debts. His smug apology and deference to us in taking the time to listen to him made me want to vomit. I can’t afford to lose this money as I’m retired and need this to live on. i certainly don’t want him to gain anything from this complete balls up of trying to run a business. Let him go back to the House of Lords and collect his £180 a day for doing f*** all.
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Sept 25, 2020 18:53:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by belladog on Sept 25, 2020 19:12:38 GMT
Its £180 per day at the moment because they have to log on at home. it’s normally what you say.
|
|
|
Post by m1kehunt on Sept 26, 2020 3:21:46 GMT
So.... of my total investment of 30k over 3 & 5 years in the P-2-P it looks like I am going to have received back a total of £29905 which includes all the interest to date plus the proposed CVA return of what is outstanding.
Therefore it will have cost me £100 to invest in Wellesley for 5 years for absolutely FA return.
And that doesn't include the Tax I've had to pay on the interest I've effectively never now received.
Thanks for nothing Wellesley.
There will be many investors from TC, LY & COL who would be drooling at the thought of that level of return. From what I can see logging into the classic account and directors document, the estimated recovery is 44% for non CVA or 48%% CVA (p2p not bonds) not sure how you worked yours out but seems a bit optimistic? my estimates also appear to be a few hundred quid out.. Should it be a percentage of the initial investment (In my case £10k over 5yrs 5.25% PLUS All withdrawn interest accrued to date? The example seems to hint that? Understand you have a 3yr and 5yr but if you have say £15k still in the 5yr don’t you stand to only recover less than half plus any interest you’ve already withdrawn so considerably less than your estimate?
|
|
|
Post by HMS Ardent on Sept 26, 2020 7:22:47 GMT
I’ve voted NO. Listening to Graham Wellseley telling me how sorry he was, with his mid-Atlantic accent, made me want to punch him on the nose. I’ve probably lost over £20000 and I’m just a regular Joe. He can afford to buy all of the debts at 50% but still rake in the whole amount of interest based on 100% of the debts. His smug apology and deference to us in taking the time to listen to him made me want to vomit. I can’t afford to lose this money as I’m retired and need this to live on. i certainly don’t want him to gain anything from this complete balls up of trying to run a business. Let him go back to the House of Lords and collect his £180 a day for doing f*** all. Surely if the Lord was that sorry for us, he'd flog that Mallorcan dream house he has and make up some of our huge shortfalls, it has to be worth £4 or £5 million.
|
|