adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 22, 2017 18:23:08 GMT
To me this simply means
1) FC do nothing
2) The borrowers are still laughing as they benefit from the "free" 400K loan given to them by FC. Also it looks as if they are also getting "free" accommodation as they may live in this building. Unlike FC they have clearly had a strategy from day 1 and to date it is working like a dream.
3) The administrators are ticking along very nicely thank you very much- Euro to a centime the final bill will be way in excess of the latest updated figure.
4) The FC lenders continue to be treated with contempt and can expect to receive zero updates and zero money
Told you I was in the wrong business....
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Sept 23, 2017 7:00:26 GMT
To me this simply means 1) FC do nothing 2) The borrowers are still laughing as they benefit from the "free" 400K loan given to them by FC. Also it looks as if they are also getting "free" accommodation as they may live in this building. Unlike FC they have clearly had a strategy from day 1 and to date it is working like a dream. 3) The administrators are ticking along very nicely thank you very much- Euro to a centime the final bill will be way in excess of the latest updated figure. 4) The FC lenders continue to be treated with contempt and can expect to receive zero updates and zero money Told you I was in the wrong business.... Whilst FC lamentably failed to collect interest in 2016 and the LTV in the proposal was erroneous and aimed to mislead, I think your critique above holds little water. I understand from other posts you are not even invested in this loan 1) The administrator is in charge so FC have nothing to do. Probably a good thing. 2) The borrowers are going to lose the property and are paying £37k a year to the administrator, I doubt they are laughing any more. 3) The actions of the borrower (with the 'purported' lease not to mention suspect planning issues) makes the case very complicated. At current projections rent will pay for all admin costs before this is resolved. 4) I find the admin reports as comprehensive as you would expect - legal actions that will probably lead to the debarring of these directors need to be kept confidential at this point. I am now confident we will get at least 70% of our capital back in the next five years - bad but could be worse.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Sept 23, 2017 9:08:53 GMT
"I am now confident we will get at least 70% of our capital back in the next five years - bad but could be worse."
Lets hope I live long enough to see if you're right as I am an investor. Does your confidence extend to understanding the powers of the Administrator in relation to the following points:-
1. FC were at the helm when the directorship change was made. Were they lax in allowing this and ignorant/unaware or plain careless of the possible intentions and resultant consequences ? 2. Further monies were advanced (despite no interest being paid) that seemingly went to another hotel, which by all accounts is still trading 3. Concerns were raised on their platform at the time by several lenders before 1 & 2 above were implemented but were either not addressed thoroughly or ignored
If the Administrator finds that FC were negligent in their oversight of the points above, does he have the power to enforce FC to compensate investors or are they solely reliant on what he can salvage by due process ?
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Sept 23, 2017 9:24:59 GMT
The administrator is looking at the insolvent company and recovering money from its assets on behalf of us the creditors. The potential misdeeds of the directors (invalid leases, avoiding planning etc) are of particular interest in this.
The potential misdeeds of FC are largely a separate issue and could be pursued separately as others have alluded to.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 23, 2017 9:33:47 GMT
Since all the lenders have novated their holdings in this loan to FC as their agent in the recovery process, the Administrator's duty is to FC. Best if the Adminstrator has just the one paid job. The performance of FC in relation to the lenders' interests is between the lenders and FC, and a matter of contracts and regulation.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 23, 2017 17:14:42 GMT
I was in this loan but I sold out as it looked dodgy to me when the other hotel became involved.
FC could always do the honourable thing and repay ,at least the £400K, to the lenders so I don't accept they have nothing to do.
I deal in distressed property and I am anything but convinced the recovery will be anywhere near 70%. Neither am I 100% convinced the owners will lose this property as they strike me as knowing exactly what they are doing. As I have said before the law in this area in incredibly technical and complex so very hard to predict what will actually happen. I have seen some unexpected judgements believe me
However unlike other forum members I don't profess to be psychic- mind you I got this one right (along with many others). As I have said before the law in this area in incredibly technical and complex. If FC lenders get 70% I will freely admit to being wrong but this is all very interesting to me.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Sept 23, 2017 17:50:30 GMT
In view of their obvious mis-management during early months of this loan, it's about time Feeble Convulsions made some attempt to make an ex-gratia payment to ALL investors at least covering the standard interest already accrued. So far FC are quite content to allow us nothing. (Everyone else seems to benefit from fees). <yeah, right ..... in yer dreams gorilla chops >
|
|
voss
Member of DD Central
Posts: 153
Likes: 84
|
Post by voss on Sept 24, 2017 7:30:47 GMT
I've often wondered, looking at your photo, do you eat the skin as well?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 25, 2017 6:36:00 GMT
This is a very good point. I am not qualified to say but I think it is possible that the administrators will be forced to get the planning issues rectified before the building is sold well with the ,legal and administration fees that could cost a fortune. Or maybe they can be scrapped but the building won't be able to be used as an hotel etc. I wonder if FC checked for planning issues etc before advancing our money! If there has been a bit of hanky-panky here then I guess the building sale could be frozen by the courts/interested parties whilst it is sorted out.
What an unbelievable mess! Good job we had the FC property experts looking after our interests....As to the final settlement I think there are just too many factors involved to predict the final outcome at this stage- what we can safely predict is that there is not going to be any settlement in the near future. If the administrators action is contested then I guess we could be talking 5 years from first overdue payment to final settlement....amazing!
Wonder if FC will include such massive cash drag when presenting their return rates?
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Sept 25, 2017 8:38:32 GMT
The key issue to me in the report is that the borrower's operating company is paying rent under the purported lease. This lease is (or should be) invalid under the terms of the FC Loan - big legal battle I am sure on this issue. But by paying rent the borrower is admitting the validity of the First Charge. This is an important first hurdle in a long battle with a slippery borrower. The property is encumbered by the purported lease as well as any planning issue - but underlying that there is real value as a building site hence I say at least 70%? The borrower I hope is sweating not laughing! Five years is not that unusual - the administrator has to play the long game to maximize returns.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 25, 2017 9:35:45 GMT
very good point - I guess from 2 angles 1) does this comply with FC's duty of care to the lenders 2) were this company in breach of the FC contract when they did this
I can see our learned friends having a field day over this one -- unless it is so expensive FC will accept a lender offer - these characters have stitched up FC even more than I realised and I am sure there is more to come... When this former director of this company resigned etc I smelled a rat and sold-up - I really don't understand why this did not ring alarm bells for FC!
If this company contest any repossession etc I just hate to think what the legal bill will be - £200K minimum? It will clearly need expert property solicitors if not barristers and they really don't come cheap. Of course this company could lose and be liable for costs but (I think) the money would come out of the final settlement anyway. If this company lose the hotel then then would have had a £1.6m loan for say 3 years without paying any interest, possibly somewhere to live for this time and £400K "free" money to plough into the Eastborne hotel not bad for £37K a year in lease payments!
I ask myself who is controlling the situation here - FC or the borrowers - answers on a digital postcard
I just don't believe it!
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Sept 25, 2017 9:53:10 GMT
The thing is, I did think it rung alarm bells for FC, just that they don't have they have what is required to do something about it. The kind of hasty withdrawal from property loans resulted IMO because these types of loans were disproportionately damaging their reputation and also borrowers who wanted to play games were able to run absolute rings around them.
Looking at ABL (my favourite platform at the moment) long drawn out issue with a 'gamesplayer' says to me that there is a decent sized loophole for those who have no real scruples about reputational damage.
According to what has been said before by some of these platform standards they would lend £5m to Kim Jong Un as long as any old valuations agency could put a valuation of £6.5m valuation on one of their missiles. Actual repossession and firesale disposal costs have not been factored in.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 25, 2017 17:05:37 GMT
As mentioned this company is getting rental income from the related company Mi****D I also note M****D managed to get a compulsory striking off order order dismissed in April 2017. As I said I am now out of this loan but all this is invaluable experience for my own business- and I thought I had seen some crazy situations! Could anybody with specialist knowledge within this field comment as to what may be going on here as I just don't get it e.g
could Mi****d claim against this company as a creditor or even contest the sale as it affects the lease! This company are clearly not stupid if nothing else and I suspect they are paying this rental income for financial self-interest and not out of a sense of moral propriety - I just can't work out what they are playing at. Whatever this saga seems a bigger mess the more it goes on...I thank you
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 4,129
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 25, 2017 17:06:50 GMT
.Surely not!
|
|
|
Post by skooldaze on Oct 1, 2017 14:14:45 GMT
Just seen a joke of an advert for the on TV.
They play drums better than they loan money out.
So I take it we need to wait till March 18 before next steps
Brexit will have happened before this morons sort it out
|
|