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 Apr 1, 2021 11:15:10 GMT
Is the hourly rate for these administrators not about £200 an hour?...is that not enough for them ...seems like a feeding frenzy of greedy people to me
Is that all? I was under the impression that the top cheeses bill their time at around £600-700 an hour, but I have no proof to back up that assertion. £400 an hour for a partner at CG when they were appointed, less for the other ranks, so the blended rate depends on who does the work. Unfortunately AFAICS CG dont provide detailed time/cost info in their reports or updated fee schedules
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 1, 2021 13:55:13 GMT
I have found one of the CG directors on Facebook - suffering whilst on holiday in Cannes- tough life or what
I know for a fact that some legal practices get most of the work done by a junior, the senior partner then checks it over and guess how the fee is calculated - answers on a digital postcard - I hope we get a full breakdown of CG's fees...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,623
Likes: 4,194
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 1, 2021 14:33:32 GMT
I have found one of the CG directors on Facebook - suffering whilst on holiday in Cannes- tough life or whatI know for a fact that some legal practices get most of the work done by a junior, the senior partner then checks it over and guess how the fee is calculated - answers on a digital postcard - I hope we get a full breakdown of CG's fees... It's very much the way the world works.
Many years ago we went to arbitration with the Welsh office, but had to delay the hearing because the arbitrator and both QC's were off on holiday to their villas in Tuscany.
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Apr 1, 2021 15:18:50 GMT
I have found one of the CG directors on Facebook - suffering whilst on holiday in Cannes- tough life or what I know for a fact that some legal practices get most of the work done by a junior, the senior partner then checks it over and guess how the fee is calculated - answers on a digital postcard - I hope we get a full breakdown of CG's fees... So they're openly breaking the law?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Apr 1, 2021 15:53:53 GMT
I await the administrators next move with great interest. I expect it will be aimed to try and shaft us lenders again! They made one of their next moves almost straight after this court action started. Since then, on all loans where the security is not sold, they have been distributing the returns pro rata on all sums owed to both FS (including previously unmentioned default interest) and investors. This has led to fees in the 13-15% range of the total recovery. It amounted to £35,000 on the Meir, Stoke on Trent and £47,000 on the F*** Street, Warrington loans by themselves... yet "there is no money"
There was a discussion about it here. My third point about the conflict of interest is even greater given FS will now be receiving little to nothing from most loans where the security is sold. It's almost always now going to be in investors' interest for the security to be sold and almost always going to be in FS' interest for a settlement to be reached.
I was hoping this would be covered in this court action but I don't think it has been, so it looks like we will need another court hearing if we wish to challenge this fee structure as well. Particularly if CG are seen to be favouring settlements over sales of the security because they deem it to be in FS' better interest.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 1, 2021 17:51:31 GMT
To be fair - I did not check the date so won't jump to that conclusion - I found him via LinkedIn so definitely the right chap
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 1, 2021 18:43:22 GMT
I have found one of the CG directors on Facebook - suffering whilst on holiday in Cannes- tough life or what I know for a fact that some legal practices get most of the work done by a junior, the senior partner then checks it over and guess how the fee is calculated - answers on a digital postcard - I hope we get a full breakdown of CG's fees... To be fair - I did not check the date so won't jump to that conclusion - I found him via LinkedIn so definitely the right chap Looking at FB and LI is fair enough, but you might want to check CH - JAG isn't a Director. Oh, and the pictures are of a 2017 vintage....
|
|
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 Apr 1, 2021 18:54:07 GMT
I have found one of the CG directors on Facebook - suffering whilst on holiday in Cannes- tough life or what I know for a fact that some legal practices get most of the work done by a junior, the senior partner then checks it over and guess how the fee is calculated - answers on a digital postcard - I hope we get a full breakdown of CG's fees... To be fair - I did not check the date so won't jump to that conclusion - I found him via LinkedIn so definitely the right chap Looking at FB and LI is fair enough, but you might want to check CH - JAG isn't a Director. Oh, and the pictures are of a 2017 vintage.... The actual director, shareholder & 'main' IP is also on FB but again no recent public posts, havent found the third IP/second director
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 1, 2021 19:35:51 GMT
Likewise. Plenty of possible / probable relatives in the 'A-G's list of FB contacts but not the man himself. Not an ardent FB'er so maybe there's a setting that hides accounts from nosy-parkers like us!
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 365
|
Post by mah on Apr 3, 2021 22:00:34 GMT
Well as it seems that the judgement is in Lenders favour but had this been left uncontested, 5% of all loan recoveries would have been paid by CG & Co to FS, which has now been deemed unlawful. Shouldn't it follow therefore, that the cost (if any) of rectifying that potential maladministration be borne by either CG & Co or deducted from any funds that FS may have got ? Exactly. They took 3 Legal Advice re the 5% Fee prior to going to the Court and those Fees were borne by the Investors. The cost of the Court Fees (£60 K) and the other Party's Fees (upto £240K) would again have to be borne by the Investors. All these to clarify a point which has a "Natural Meaning" & "Commercial Common Sense" to rank behind the Investors' Capital & Interests. So, the Investors never asked for these actions and should not be Liable for these Costs. Either C&G pay these from their own Funds or claim it from the Legal Advisors Indemnity Insurance for their (Il)legal Advice.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Apr 4, 2021 10:01:05 GMT
Without wishing to fan the flames and purely from a layman's POV, the judgement regarding the validity (or not) of this 5% nonsense, makes me feel rather uneasy that not only was the decision by CG & Co arbitrary and unlawful but that it also raises potential doubts (in my mind anyway) as to what has already been 'resolved' from the LB and filed away. Have there been other 'errors of judgement ' by a professional body of Administrators who should know better ?
A note of thanks to those behind the scenes who have possibly forgotten more than I'll ever know for their tireless work for the benefit of all investors.
|
|
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 Apr 4, 2021 11:43:10 GMT
IMO there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of administration & the role of the IP. The administrator are responsible to the company & its creditors. Their objective, as agreed by the CM & CC in the proposals, is to achieve a better result for creditors than if the company were wound up. Where there is uncertainty regarding how they should proceed or interpretation of facts/documents they will seek legal advice, as they have done in both the fee issue & the trust structure, if that fails to resolve the issue, they will seek directions from the court on how to proceed, as they have and would have with the trust structure if they hadnt come to an agreement with the creditors. They couldnt just decide that the 5% wouldnt be charged against legal advice & the interests of the creditors, that would be in breach of their duties, so they had to go to court. AFAICS the judge has not said that their approach was unreasonable or unlawful merely that on the balance of evidence/arguments made he 'favoured' the interpretation of the investors. The costs are costs of the administration and payable from the company estate not by investors.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 5, 2021 22:16:36 GMT
IMO there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of administration & the role of the IP. The administrator are responsible to the company & its creditors. Their objective, as agreed by the CM & CC in the proposals, is to achieve a better result for creditors than if the company were wound up. Where there is uncertainty regarding how they should proceed or interpretation of facts/documents they will seek legal advice, as they have done in both the fee issue & the trust structure, if that fails to resolve the issue, they will seek directions from the court on how to proceed, as they have and would have with the trust structure if they hadnt come to an agreement with the creditors. They couldnt just decide that the 5% wouldnt be charged against legal advice & the interests of the creditors, that would be in breach of their duties, so they had to go to court. AFAICS the judge has not said that their approach was unreasonable or unlawful merely that on the balance of evidence/arguments made he 'favoured' the interpretation of the investors. The costs are costs of the administration and payable from the company estate not by investors. As most are aware, P2P precedence has not sufficiently evolved, neither has statute on P2P, especially with regards to lenders assets and capital. The necessity for the recent court case and verdict being a case in point. There are several other areas of law that will affect the verdict. Just because the funds were deducted and utilised as per the joint administrators’ instructions (“Joint Administrators progress report, filed 2nd Dec 2020, section 2.48, "the Joint administrators have caused the company to deduct the additional administration fee of 5%............".), instead of being returned to the lenders, does not close the situation, it now complicates the matter for the administration, who will no doubt use further lenders funds in legal counsel to attempt to prove their point, yet again. The joint administrators have utilised significant funds from the 5% levy for this case. The lenders paid for a case against themselves . Those outstanding funds from the 5% levy now currently remain owing to the lenders, irrespective if they were utilised by accident or not. The judgement is clear, they should not have been deducted until all capital and interest has been repaid to lenders. The Judge did not make comment on whether it was unlawful or unreasonable, as the court was just asked for guidance in this matter and to clarify the meaning of the T&Cs as the T&Cs were not clear to the joint administrators nor legal firms they requested counsel from.
|
|
|
Post by mikeyb999 on Apr 8, 2021 12:07:42 GMT
So am I right to expect a payment back equal to 5% of the funds already received (unless I received 100% capital plus interest already)?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 8, 2021 12:22:50 GMT
IMO there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of administration & the role of the IP. The administrator are responsible to the company & its creditors. Their objective, as agreed by the CM & CC in the proposals, is to achieve a better result for creditors than if the company were wound up. Where there is uncertainty regarding how they should proceed or interpretation of facts/documents they will seek legal advice, as they have done in both the fee issue & the trust structure, if that fails to resolve the issue, they will seek directions from the court on how to proceed, as they have and would have with the trust structure if they hadnt come to an agreement with the creditors. They couldnt just decide that the 5% wouldnt be charged against legal advice & the interests of the creditors, that would be in breach of their duties, so they had to go to court. AFAICS the judge has not said that their approach was unreasonable or unlawful merely that on the balance of evidence/arguments made he 'favoured' the interpretation of the investors. The costs are costs of the administration and payable from the company estate not by investors. As most are aware, P2P precedence has not sufficiently evolved, neither has statute on P2P, especially with regards to lenders assets and capital. The necessity for the recent court case and verdict being a case in point. There are several other areas of law that will affect the verdict. Just because the funds were deducted and utilised as per the joint administrators’ instructions (“Joint Administrators progress report, filed 2nd Dec 2020, section 2.48, "the Joint administrators have caused the company to deduct the additional administration fee of 5%............".), instead of being returned to the lenders, does not close the situation, it now complicates the matter for the administration, who will no doubt use further lenders funds in legal counsel to attempt to prove their point, yet again. The joint administrators have utilised significant funds from the 5% levy for this case. The lenders paid for a case against themselves . Those outstanding funds from the 5% levy now currently remain owing to the lenders, irrespective if they were utilised by accident or not. The judgement is clear, they should not have been deducted until all capital and interest has been repaid to lenders. . The Judge did not make comment on whether it was unlawful or unreasonable, as the court was just asked for guidance in this matter and to clarify the meaning of the T&Cs as the T&Cs were not clear to the joint administrators nor legal firms they requested counsel from. Theoretically at least it was a 'clarification' by the court for the benefit of all, and the Administrators were neutral. It wasn't meant to be a case for or against anyone, just making sure the final interpretation was legally correct, the costs will no doubt come out of the costs of the administration, ie, mainly from lenders. If the Administrators now have to divert the income from the administration to pay back lenders they will either have to reduce costs which will probably disadvantage lenders' future recoveries or find another way of getting more income, again almost certainly from lenders.
|
|