Aberystwyth Hotel Loan

Unfortunately not.    In an answer to a question in the Q&A AC have made it clear that in the 30/30/40 scenario described Option C would be declared the winner.  That seems rather unreasonable to me, but that's JMHO.

Another thing AC said that really boggled my mind was in response to a question regarding what would happen to the SM trading situation under each of the Options.  They said "...we will not be detailing the position regarding suspension of the loan as part of the vote as this should have no bearing on the decision."  Are they really suggesting that lenders shouldn't consider that major impact when deciding how to vote? 

Even after having read the Q&A I'm afraid I'm still totally confused about the difference between Options A&B, particularly since Option B seems to have a lower interest rate, less amortisation, and higher payments, yet it still takes longer to clear the arrears.

Someone thought it would make no difference to the borrower if their payments were classified as principal or interest and asked AC whether that was correct.  AC's response was an extremely unhelpful "We cannot offer tax advice to lenders."  I didn't think the lender asking the question was asking for tax advice, but what do I know?  ISTM that it would make a difference to the borrower because interest payments ought to be a business expense that would reduce their income and therefore their tax liability  -- or increase their loss to carry forward -- whereas a capital payment would have no effect on their income.  But I'm not qualified to comment on such matters, so it's just a layman's opinion.

The questioner went on to ask "Actually, would it not be clearer if for both options A & B you provided a repayment schedule broken into the capital and interest components so each lender can see clearly how he/she might be affected? My vote will depend on your answers."  And AC's reply to that was a rather disappointing "Given there are arrears outstanding it is not practical to provide a repayment schedule..." which left me wondering how AC could manage the loan if they can't produce a repayment schedule. 

AC also went on to say "Given the site does not support the compounding of interest ... it is not currently the intention to charge interest on outstanding interest."  And that struck me -- again as someone unqualified to comment -- as possibly the most significant difference between payments being classified as interest vs. principal.  If they're classified as interest, then the capital remains outstanding and accruing more interest.  If they're classified as principal, then each monthly payment means less capital outstanding and less interest accrues the next month.    If the loan were to carry on long enough, the principal balance would be reduced to nil and there'd be no more interest accruing.  Total payments to lenders under that scenario -- which I guess is Option A -- would be significantly less than if payments were treated as interest.  I suspect that's all the result of not charging interest on the ever-increasing interest remaining to be paid while the capital is being paid down.

Maybe it's just me, but with the consequences of the A&B Options being as unclear as they are I really don't know how AC's investors are going to decide how to vote.  Does that mean there will be a significant 'no vote' count?  I haven't a clue.  But I'm going to guess that there will be more votes for A&B combined than for C, but that there will be more votes for C than either A or B, so AC will have to call in the receivers despite the majority of the vote having been against that option.

Vote will be paused.

Perhaps there should possibly be two votes, the first to decide whether to extend or not, then if extension is decided, a 2nd vote as to the terms

Pepps, that looks like an ideal way forward without needing reworded options. However, I think the existing vote will have to be scrapped, and e re-vote carried out.

Say I am happy with the restructure at 12%, but very unhappy with restructure at 11% (to the extent that I would rather appoint receivers than accept 11%). Which way do I vote?

As an alternative there could be a multi phase vote, first do you accept the 12% restructure (if the vote is no then) do you accept a 11% restructure. If that gets voted down as well then bring in the receivers.

I feel a PR solution coming on, with a single transferable vote. I wonder if the IT system could cope with that?

Where are the Lib Dems when you need them?

You stated earlier that the vote was paused. Some lenders may well have decided to postpone casting their vote as a result.

This latest statement implies (to me at least), but fails to state explicitly, that the deadline remains unchanged, ie the vote is now 'unpaused'.

What it does make clear is that the very rational expressions of doubt as to the 'fairness' of the stated vote mechanism are going to be ignored, at least for now.

Is it likely that the 'something more' might influence a lenders voting preference? Should the undecided hang fire for now?

Clarity please.

andrewholgate Do you think some update to this effect should be provided on the website, possibly even by email, to notify all the lenders who dont frequent this restricted forum?