chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Sept 11, 2018 15:55:36 GMT
Can I just make a general (and perhaps unpopular) request that if you are not a lawyer, please try to refrain from making statements about the law from your general knowledge. People come to this forum for advice and guidance and it's not helpful for such people to read things that are patently wrong and show no understanding of the relevant law.
This isn't aimed at any one person, so please don't feel targeted. It's a problem all over this forum when things go wrong, but I've noticed it particularly in this thread.
(And, yes, I am in one of these loans)
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 23, 2018 6:04:48 GMT
It stinks to high heaven and FS aren't telling us everything. Obviously. What the hell do lawyers have to do with it, unless maybe there's a question over provenance/ownership? It's a Straight Pawn Loan. Supposedly. FS' track record with this type of security is that they get shot of it fairly swiftly because FS knows the valuation is probably, reasonably accurate. Unlike the Property Loans, which FS knows ................... When I emailed them (about loan 1614460897, at least), their line was that if they go through lawyers, as lawyers are bound by certain professional conduct obligations, FS can have more faith/trust in what they are being told. Whereas they wouldn't necessarily be able to have that same confidence in what they are being told if going straight to the borrower (the penny finally drops that maybe they're being led up the garden path by these borrowers!). This isn't to excuse any of what FS is doing, and it doesn't necessarily explain why lawyers are involved in the first place. In that regard, though, they also told me: This is a complex case and therefore will take some time to recover. Unfortunately the repayments have not arrived as expected, but we have confidence that there will be tangible progress shortly. We are unfortunately not able to disclose details at this time but we are still talking to the borrower as well as their legal teams.Apologies if I wasn't meant to post that for some reason, but I assume it's okay as there isn't anything much concrete in it.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jun 23, 2018 2:25:38 GMT
I got mine and it shows the amount I had in the platform the last time I was able to check it but shouldn't my claim by greater than that since it should include the interest I might have expected in the meantime (however unlikely such a claim would be met) ? Or is my claim limited to what was owed to me on the date the company went into administration? Echoing this query. Is it not the case that our claimable amount should include interest accrued (but apparently unpaid) and will continue to increase daily? And, if so, should we not be alerting BDO to such claims? Perhaps this is one for the Moorfields help thread... (And yes, I know we care most about getting capital back - but if they do manage to recover enough info to establish our exact loan positions, then getting back interest from a fully repaid loan will help offset any capital losses in others, so I think this is important to pursue if we want to get as close as possible to a net full capital recovery). Edit: Just re-read Section 16 of the 21 June Proposals, and saw this (apologies if already posted elsewhere): " For the avoidance of doubt, the claim amounts included in the proof of debt forms are, at this stage, solely for the purpose of voting in relation to the Joint Administrators’ proposals (i.e. they will not in any way affect your rights to recover any sums owing – whether as a result of trust or unsecured claims against the Companies). It is accepted that the nature and/or extent of these claims may change as the Administrations progress and further information/analysis becomes available." So I guess we can sit on this issue for now.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jun 8, 2018 1:16:44 GMT
Not really.
After tax etc, for a highly educated and experienced individual who works and lives in London it is reasonable IMO.
If Labour get into power we will be looking at £1000 per hour pre tax minimum otherwise it's not worth getting out of bed.
So 1.92M per year including the time of admin people? Plenty of other "highly educated and experienced" individuals such as consultants and senior lawyers don't get close to that. Anyhow I always used to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your super positive Lendy posts. Not sure I will from now on! I used to be charged out at just below that rate as a junior lawyer, but I can assure you I didn't receive anything like your figure as a salary!! And no, 'admin people' will certainly not be charged out at that kind of rate. Many firms probably don't even charge out admin staff formally, but I can't comment on BDO in particular. Separately, while I've been promoting patient waiting up to now, I am a little frustrated that BDO informed us on 24 May that they would 'shortly' be updating the website FAQs, but still have not two weeks later (unless I've missed something?). That is a little annoying...
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 24, 2018 11:44:05 GMT
I'm interested in how to PROOVE what you have invested in COL. I have a spreadsheet of the investments I have - but I could have written that myself I have bank statements showing where I put cash in (or out) - but not how much is in there now Most of the emails I ever got from COL have been deleted as my email box is usually full (maybe I should archive them all) What other info does anyone have ? Which is exactly why the administrators have said: " It is recognised that, without access to the Companies’ online platform, many investors will not presently be able to confirm the amounts that they consider are owed to them. At this stage, the Joint Administrators do not, therefore, require investors to provide a proof of debt form." So let's just all calm down and let them do their work for a little longer...
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 29, 2018 17:34:18 GMT
My thought process is that if Col are holding interest payments which were due to us but collected by them on our behalf, then they owe that money to us. Therefore they are in debt to us for that amount and we are by nature of that, their creditors. Of course, that thought is based on what seems logical to me. When has the law reflected what seems logical? I think it’s potentially a bit more complicated than that as creditors are generally paid out at a p/£ rate, whereas such money could be deemed client money over which we have a beneficial interest. BUT - the point wasn’t to re-hash the creditor vs. lender/investor debate. My question is purely premised on the scenario that we are deemed creditors. I don’t wish to be rude, but I’m not planning on having a debate re the former at this stage as I just don’t have the expertise to do so!
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 29, 2018 17:21:45 GMT
I am no expert in these matters, so welcome an explanation of why I am wrong, but until then my belief is this: We are not creditors of Collateral regarding the loans presently with the borrowers. The deal is between ourselves and the borrowers with Col acting as agents/facilitators. However, regarding interest (and any capital) payments made by the borrowers to Col, we are creditors as Col have our money - unless it has been spirited away. The same applies to any money we invested which never made it to borrowers. If we are not creditors, then the only conclusion I can think of is that we be victims of theft and/or fraud. Yes, as I said in my post, I also do not believe we are creditors (although I don’t follow all the logic in your final para). However, I am also not an expert in this area of law. The hearing on Friday also appears to have been unclear on this point. Therefore, my question was regarding the eventuality that we *are* deemed creditors.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 29, 2018 16:33:37 GMT
I hope no one deems this engaging in unhelpful speculation, but I've been thinking about the logical conclusion of the creditor vs. lender/investor debate and wanted to check others' opinion on this. Apologies, as ever, if this has been covered elsewhere and I've missed it.
If we are eventually deemed as creditors,* the likely result seems to me that which loans we invested in, the performance of specific loans, the recoverability of funds if loans default, whether our specific money was lent out or held as cash (and perhaps wrongfully dissipated) etc. etc., will all be irrelevant to us as individuals. Instead, the administrators will recover as much as they can, and then all of us will receive an identical p in the £ rate, regardless of where our specific money was or what happened to it.
I hope I'm wrong on this (as, for example, I bought up quite a lot of very secure first-ranking Bolton loan parts literally days before this all went caput)**... but I fear this is how it would play out? Thoughts?
*I should say clearly that I do not believe that we are creditors.
**On the other hand, I guess for some people this could give them a higher rate of recovery than they would have otherwise...!
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 12, 2018 19:49:32 GMT
While I can't say I know the full details, I don't think the FCA had much of a choice unless they wanted to make a mockery of their regulations. It makes perfect sense that if you tell a company to stop trading because they are carrying on a regulated activity without permission, you can hardly allow administrators without permission to carry on that activity themselves. Give them permission then? Surely you realise it's not that simple from the context of this entire situation...?!
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 12, 2018 14:08:43 GMT
Received the same letter. Going to be honest regarding our cash as investors held in the segregated accounts. I refrained from commenting before as I am not an expert but I do believe the fact it is in an "segregated account" does not mean it is completely untouchable. In fact it was explained to me a while back a "segregated account" simply raises us to the status of secured creditors rather than unsecured if the hits the fan. Money being in a segregated account or not has nothing to do with status as a secured or unsecured creditor. The latter relates to whether a creditor, as security for their loan (or whatever it might be), has a charge over some or all of the assets of the company. This is not relevant to our situation and Refresh have done nothing to help the confusion with their latest email.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 12, 2018 14:03:55 GMT
The situation is a farce. We should not be general creditors of Collateral in relation to the value of the loans that we hold. We should be treated as creditors only to the extent that Collateral has misplaced or misappropriated any funds that should be held in the client account, either because those funds have not been lent or because payments of capital or interest have been received. And they can’t cross-collateralise the loan book. Any other course of action makes a mockery of the whole concept of peer to peer lending. Quite. I am becoming happier and happier that the FCA is insisting on a change to the administrators as Refresh really don't seem to know what they're talking about.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 5, 2018 8:40:32 GMT
The FCA statement says "The Collateral Companies were required to obtain the approval of the FCA when appointing an administrator." Who says? The company was not FCA regulated so why were they "required" You don't get to opt out of the relevant law/regs just because you choose to violate certain other parts of them... It's not so much that Collateral weren't regulated as that they didn't lawfully obtain permission within the regulations.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Mar 8, 2018 12:10:34 GMT
Apologies if this has already been discussed - but I can't see mention of it in the previous pages.
I wonder if anyone can tell me whether they are aware of Collateral's obligations (if any) with regard to development projects. Perhaps we never saw the relevant docs/weren't told, but I wonder if the relevant loan agreements contained any obligation that, provided certain criteria were fulfilled, Collateral was obliged to provide further development tranches to borrowers. It seems possible to me that a borrower would want such comfort in a loan agreement, for fear that development funding might be pulled, endangering the project. On the other hand, a p2p platform can never be certain it will be able to raise funds from lenders - so perhaps there would be a get-out clause.
If there are any such obligations, this would of course be highly relevant as we understand from the administrator that no further funding will be provided (and, obviously, there wouldn't be any source for the funding as we can't get on the website to provide it). I suppose the borrowers would theoretically be able to seek damages from Collateral for breach of contract, in such a case.
I know speculation isn't ideal at this point - but I thought this was something pretty relevant and concrete, if anyone is aware of how this works generally in p2p/how it has worked at Collateral? I'm a lawyer by training, so find it hard to resist wondering about these things...
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 18, 2017 16:23:22 GMT
Please could you also confirm whether the IFISA is 'flexible'? (i.e. can we withdraw and deposit as much as we like within the £20k limit)
|
|