adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 20, 2021 17:21:34 GMT
thanks for this - claim seems very thorough to me - I did not think of point 4 but glad it is being considered - not sure I could face reading all of the report!
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,568
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 20, 2021 18:24:22 GMT
thanks for this - claim seems very thorough to me - I did not think of point 4 but glad it is being considered - not sure I could face reading all of the report! Not as through as the Lendy List - There's 16 issues on that one :s
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,568
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 30, 2021 20:56:22 GMT
Judgement getting handed down tomorrow. Listed as Private(!). An application will be made under CPR 39.2(5) to challange.
Before His Honour Judge Pearce Sitting as a Judge of the High Court Sitting remotely
At the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester On 31 March 2021
In Private 10:00am CR-2019-MAN-001065 Funding Secure Ltd Handing down Judgment (Teams)
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Mar 31, 2021 2:57:14 GMT
Even if that means us serfs are not to be allowed to hear or read the judgment immediately, surely we will know it as soon as the next defaulted case is wrapped up and C&G does or doesn't deduct the 5%?
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 452
|
Post by aj on Mar 31, 2021 7:23:22 GMT
I get the feeling this might be a lose-lose situation for lenders. If the 5% to FS is deemed invalid, C&G will probably try to increase their fees as they are no longer able to pass all the work to the single remaining FS employee (Paid for by the 5%).
C&G will have earmarked their fees as profit; they will try their hardest to avoid having to put in work to earn them.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,568
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2021 13:17:14 GMT
Key points:
"the 5% Fee should be payable from the proceeds of realisation of an asset only after deduction of the sums due to the Investors"
"the Opposing Respondents are entitled to recover both the capital sum and any outstanding interest in preference to the 5% Fee"
"I conclude that, on their true construction, the Loan Agreements operate so that payment of the 5% Fee arises where a Borrower has defaulted and the security asset has been sold; that it is payable after repayment of the Investors; and that the fee is to be calculated as 5% of the original amount of the relevant loan. "
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 31, 2021 13:27:29 GMT
overall I think this is good news but I really have not time to read the judgement
Does this mean we will be getting a refund where we were "due" the 5% and Fs took 5% on the amount recovered rather than the original loan amount
I thank you
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,568
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2021 13:45:54 GMT
A bombshell at Para 18: "In Autumn 2018, [Raj Kumar] became aware that the Company was subject to an investigation by the FCA that arose when it came to light that the Company had been rolling over loans using funding from the Company’s client account."
The FCA knew in 2018?!
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Mar 31, 2021 13:52:25 GMT
Key points:
"the 5% Fee should be payable from the proceeds of realisation of an asset only after deduction of the sums due to the Investors"
"the Opposing Respondents are entitled to recover both the capital sum and any outstanding interest in preference to the 5% Fee"
"I conclude that, on their true construction, the Loan Agreements operate so that payment of the 5% Fee arises where a Borrower has defaulted and the security asset has been sold; that it is payable after repayment of the Investors; and that the fee is to be calculated as 5% of the original amount of the relevant loan. "
Yes, I hope that they get a move on paying it. I doubt it though, can they appeal?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,871
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 31, 2021 14:30:06 GMT
A bombshell at Para 18: "In Autumn 2018, [Raj Kumar] became aware that the Company was subject to an investigation by the FCA that arose when it came to light that the Company had been rolling over loans using funding from the Company’s client account."
The FCA knew in 2018?!
How did the FCA let them get away with describing themselves as the 'lender' in the master agreement when P2P legislation specifically prohibits platforms lending themselves?
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Mar 31, 2021 14:45:30 GMT
Erm..sorry but ..Im dim...if the 5% fee comes secondary to investors capital and any interest as per....
"the 5% Fee should be payable from the proceeds of realisation of an asset only after deduction of the sums due to the Investors"
"the Opposing Respondents are entitled to recover both the capital sum and any outstanding interest in preference to the 5% Fee"
Does it follow(for a myriad reasons we all know) that where the recoveries are insufficient to fully pay back investors capital & interest, then the 5% fee is in effect hypothetical..as in most cases, there wont be anything left ?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,568
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2021 14:51:10 GMT
Erm..sorry but ..Im dim...if the 5% fee comes secondary to investors capital and any interest as per.... "the 5% Fee should be payable from the proceeds of realisation of an asset only after deduction of the sums due to the Investors" "the Opposing Respondents are entitled to recover both the capital sum and any outstanding interest in preference to the 5% Fee" Does it follow(for a myriad reasons we all know) that where the recoveries are insufficient to fully pay back investors capital & interest, then the 5% fee is in effect hypothetical..as in most cases, there wont be anything left ? Indeed, at Para 65 the Judge said "However, the fact that the Company was responsible for valuing the security does provide some support for the Opposing Respondents’ proposed construction, since that construction creates an incentive in the Company to value the security accurately, so as to minimise the risk of shortfall."
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 452
|
Post by aj on Mar 31, 2021 14:52:40 GMT
Justice has apparently prevailed? I know of at least one case (6560248187) where the 5% was taken from lenders, and 'surplus' was returned to the borrowers! Since the 5% has been in dispute for a while that 'surplus' should really have been held in a suspense account, much like my investment in C*****r H**** currently is. Are C&G going to have to ask for the borrower to kindly return the cash? Edit: My mistake Ilmoro, I was under the impression the 5% was taken there. I await the administrators next move with great interest. I expect it will be aimed to try and shaft us lenders again!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,871
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 31, 2021 15:05:58 GMT
Justice has apparently prevailed? I know of at least one case (6560248187) where the 5% was taken from lenders, and 'surplus' was returned to the borrowers! Since the 5% has been in dispute for a while that 'surplus' should really have been held in a suspense account, much like my investment in C*****r H**** currently is. Are C&G going to have to ask for the borrower to kindly return the cash? I await the administrators next move with great interest. I expect it will be aimed to try and shaft us lenders again! Dont think it affects funds returned to borrowers. They should only receive cash once the investors & FS have been repaid in full, except for the deduction of the 2.5% fee agreed. The issue is loans where investors havent been paid in full. If investors have been paid in full (minus the 2.5%) then FS gets the 5%, its admin fees, default interest, and the borrower gets anything left. AIUI for the the loan you cite investors received full capital & interest minus the 2.5%. The 2.5% is agreed between the admins & lenders, its not part of the contract with the borrower so they are not liable for it.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 31, 2021 16:02:45 GMT
I agree with the above but am no lawyer - however there have been at least a couple of loans where FS charged 5% on the amount recovered when it was more than the loan - as I see it we are due a refund... doubtless we will have to pay goodness knows how much an hour for CG to work this all out...
|
|