Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 19, 2019 18:00:30 GMT
We can only hope that 'Lendy's Contractual Entitlement' is declared unenforceable as it incentivises Lendy to drag out and delay administrative action for its own benefit at the cost of its customers. The conflict of interest could not be clearer. Brilliant business model, mind you, if it's not illegal. We can also only hope that the administrators will legally challenge "Lendy's Contactual Entitlement" on behalf of investors with all of their strength and might in order to prove it unenforceable regardless of the fact that it's clearly in their interests for it to stand and they are obliged to maximise returns for the creditors of Lendy Ltd under the Insolvency Act. As the same administrators and legal personnel are acting for both Lendy Ltd and SSSH (the investors) where will the motivation come from to deem it "unenforceable?" The conflict of interest could not be clearer.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 19, 2019 17:55:41 GMT
Lendy Distribution Waterfall breakdown figures released in 6 month proposals:
Gross realisation: 7,450,000
Third party costs: 376,675 Costs paid by company: 281,197 Lendy service fee: 189,822
Lendy contractual entitlement: 1,693,975 Investors contractual entitlement: 4,908,331
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 19, 2019 17:45:36 GMT
The 6 month proposals have now been uploaded here: rsm.insolvencypoint.com/1084885New 1st year fee estimate has increased to 2.5m. "Since the date of appointment, the Joint Administrators have incurred time costs totalling £1,736,829. Of this, a total of £500,000 (plus VAT) has been paid and £1,236,829 remains outstanding and due to be paid."
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 19, 2019 17:07:52 GMT
Now that the 6 month proposals are out you can finally see where your money went sussexlender . The borrower actually refinanced the loan for the full capital amount (plus some interest). The rest was taken by the Lendy "distribution waterfall". Original loan value: 2,100,000 Gross realisation from borrower: 2,150,000
Third-party costs: 9,525 Costs paid by the company: 4263 Lendy Service Fee: 144,373 Lendy Contractual Entitlement: 831,388 Amount received by lenders: 1,160,450
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 6, 2019 12:05:00 GMT
A sad but not unexpected announcement.
Regardless of mistakes made or issues the platform has faced I think Ed and Sophie have always acted with integrity which is a lot more than can be said for some of the other platform operators.
I wish them well in whatever venture they decide to pursue next.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 5, 2019 12:27:02 GMT
I'm not sure the words "low risk" and "P2P" go hand-in-hand anymore...
If/when there's a downturn even the "safest" places will be highly vulnerable.
Fixed saving accounts with rates of 2.37% and FSCS protection seem appealing.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 3, 2019 18:58:12 GMT
Email update received. Not great news.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 30, 2019 12:24:24 GMT
'However, Lendy may, and Saving Stream Security Holding may, vary this order in their discretion'
Now that the company is in administration, who controls this 'discretion'?
Take a wild guess... The firm who are obligated under the Insolvency Act to maximise returns for the creditors of Lendy Ltd.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Lendy (L) in Administration
Monthly Updates
Nov 30, 2019 9:26:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Monetus on Nov 30, 2019 9:26:01 GMT
That was my reading of it. Hence, it seems that we should all file a Proof of Debt against Lendy for our losses, as suggested by the Administrators. This way, at best, we get some additional small return, but also reduce the payout to LB. “ To the extent that any investor suffers a shortfall following the Distribution Waterfall, those investors will be at liberty to file a proof of debt against Lendy, fully setting out their claim for the Administrators' consideration. The investor's rights will not be affected by filing a proof of debt.”
I would be grateful for any suggestions on how to frame such a claim. I believe this is the form. I've assumed we have plenty of time to do this as they won't distirbute funds to the creditors until the end of the admninstration?
Yes no payment would be made until the very end of the admin and you’d also need to be able to quantify the true value of your claim so it’s too early to know the full extent of losses you may have suffered.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 30, 2019 9:18:59 GMT
Worth a go however I wouldn’t expect much from the FCA (who have apparently already reviewed the waterfall distributions and communication that you received yesterday). Rather than challenging their terms the FCA instead granted Lendy full authorisation in June 2019 . Liam Brooke, CEO of Lendy Ltd, said at the time: “We’re very pleased to have been given full authorisation by the FCA. It has been a long and sometimes challenging journey, which has involved a detailed review of our processes and policies and has helped us mature into a stronger and more robust business. Oh and then there was also the FCA ignoring the known cases of mis-selling of course... www.thetimes.co.uk/article/watchdog-cleared-lendy-despite-loans-mis-selling-qkzfkdqjn“Protecting consumers” as always...
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 29, 2019 19:13:59 GMT
Does this mean that the administrators are enforcing lendy's Ts & Cs change that most of us rejected? No it means the administrators are attempting to enforce fees owed to Lendy Ltd that were allegedly written directly into the loan security documents/debentures by Lendy when the loans were originated. Essentially the loan/borrower agreements have apparently superseded the platform terms. "The security documents set out an order of priority of payment"This has nothing to do with the platform terms and conditions or any variation of them. The real relevant parts of the terms are: "9.1 The Loan Contract governs the terms of repayment of principal and payment of interest by the borrower." "9.11 Details of the fees which Lendy charges borrowers are set out in the relevant Loan Contract, and these are, typically, an arrangement fee, an exit fee, and a loan monitoring fee."
Investors have never seen these security documents so won't have had any idea what fees would be contractually due to Lendy Ltd or indeed what their priority would be in the waterfall in this type of scenario although I do believe that one loan agreement may be out there in the public domain somewhere due to a well-publicised court battle to give you an idea. From the way I'm reading it the 3% "fixed" SLA will only be enforced if RSM run out of money from the Lendy Ltd pot to fund the administration having burnt through all the waterfall distributions cash.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 25, 2019 18:34:06 GMT
LAG has nothing to do with the proposed legal action against Model 1 loans. Totally different people/action group with totally different goals. The genesis of LAG was started by wuzimu here: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13628/lendy-action-group-thoughtsThe role of the CLB (and indeed creditors committee) isn't to rubber stamp anything in regards to deductions from loans. These decisions are made by lawyers and rubber-stamped by judges in courts. The role of these committees are purely advisory and have very little sway - many people here seem to significantly over-estimate their level of influence. The majority of the CLB are all experienced, prominent and long-term posters from this forum who volunteered to put themselves forward. The others are people who can help in other ways such as political or legal support (which will be much-needed). Regardless, LAG has never been about individuals (as you will see shortly as big changes are afoot) and constantly engages with all types of Lendy investors from across the spectrum to get their views on various matters. Efforts have been made via PM to engage with an Administrator of this forum to get their point of view and discuss proposed ways forward for both Lendy and Collateral but so far no response has been received. These questions could have been asked directly - we don't bite! A PM actually devoid of any proposals concerning Lendy and Collateral. If these ideas or “proposals” relate to the operation of the P2PIF then I suggest you make them to the whole team - dan1 ; df ; GSV3MIaC ; mrclondon ; star dust and Ton ⓉⓞⓃ . We're happy to listen and await your PM with interest – we don’t bite either. 😊 It doesn't relate to the operation of P2PIF it was on a personal basis so there is no need to discuss with the whole team. Thanks anyway! 😊
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 24, 2019 8:31:21 GMT
Leaving aside this stupid mismanagement from RSM (We all know that RSM, BDO and the likes are no more than second tier bean counters and proven incompetent), is there any reason to think that LAG has an agenda that is not aligned with the common interest of Lendy investors as a whole? As I understand it LAG was being setup prior to the administration of Lendy.
There was also a forum member earlier this year who was organising a class action against Lendy to force the repayment of the model 1 loans, and had quite a few lenders interested enough to make further enquiries with the law firm being proposed. (I've no idea how far that legal action progressed, but my concerns that it would force Lendy into voluntary administration were dismissed as "rubbish" when I expressed them in a series of PM's at the time.)
I have no idea the extent to which those behind LAG are the same individuals that were organising an 'action group' earlier this year to force the model 1 loans to be repaid even though it might force Lendy into administration to the detriment of model 2 loan holders. A random selection of lenders for the CLB would have avoided any such concerns (i.e. 5 names picked from a hat containing the nominees) and would have been preferable to RSM's own original proposal of the 5 largest lenders, given some of those may have had "more money than sense".
Whilst LAG is almost certainly a cause for good in general terms, it is not great that no-one outside of LAG (despite nominating themselves) has been permitted to join the CLB to act as a check & balance. In an ideal world, the CLB should have comprised of people who only have model 2 loans, to avoid any conflict of interest with respect to model 1 holdings which will benefit from the deductions from the model 2 loans.
All of that said, I'm somewhat ambivalent as I fear the CLB's main role in the eyes of RSM is to rubber stamp (on behalf of all lenders) what has already been agreed between Grant Thornton & RSM based on the legal advice already sought regarding the fee deductions from model 2 loans. The prospect of real influence is I fear just an illusion.
Irrespective of the actual motives of LAG, if they do end up rubber stamping the massive deductons from the model 2 loans (as in practical terms they may have little option but to do so in the end), the "stupid mismanagement from RSM" as you put it is very likely to result in legal challenges against RSM/Grant Thornton by HNW lenders who may feel a higher recovery of their loans would have been possible if the CLB had been appointed as per the intent emailed to all lenders. So, I'm afriad, its yet more costs that RSM will rack up in defending the claims.
Maybe LAG should renounce one of their 5 seats on the CLB to remove some of the risk of this being challenged in the courts.
Like most longer term lenders at Lendy, I do have some model 1 loans, representing perhaps 10% of my account balance. However, as a small percentage of the total, I like most lenders would benefit from lower deductions on the model 2 loans rather than a full recovery of the model 1 loans. But there are a few individuals (i.e. those progressing the class action earlier this year) that will benefit from larger deductions on the model 2 loans to provide fuller recovery on their model 1 loans. LAG has nothing to do with the proposed legal action against Model 1 loans. Totally different people/action group with totally different goals. The genesis of LAG was started by wuzimu here: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13628/lendy-action-group-thoughtsThe role of the CLB (and indeed creditors committee) isn't to rubber stamp anything in regards to deductions from loans. These decisions are made by lawyers and rubber-stamped by judges in courts. The role of these committees are purely advisory and have very little sway - many people here seem to significantly over-estimate their level of influence. The majority of the CLB are all experienced, prominent and long-term posters from this forum who volunteered to put themselves forward. The others are people who can help in other ways such as political or legal support (which will be much-needed). Regardless, LAG has never been about individuals (as you will see shortly as big changes are afoot) and constantly engages with all types of Lendy investors from across the spectrum to get their views on various matters. Efforts have been made via PM to engage with an Administrator of this forum to get their point of view and discuss proposed ways forward for both Lendy and Collateral but so far no response has been received. These questions could have been asked directly - we don't bite!
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 20, 2019 19:45:12 GMT
I guess the real question is how come the previous purchaser (and the one before that for that matter) were both seemingly unable to put the money together to make this scheme happen... and why would it necessarily be a different story for any new purchaser?
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 20, 2019 18:40:18 GMT
As a forever optimist.... at least this is an already cleared development site/piece of land (allegedly) with approved planning consent (allegedly) and not another half-finished development that's been abandoned halfway-through and mothballed mid-construction (allegedly). It should be valuable to someone (allegedly). The cafe is still standing, AFAIK. So it is. Make that a 90% cleared development site. Any idea why?
|
|