IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 15, 2019 15:28:38 GMT
Partial repayment (R1) now credited to our accounts, but just 46.6% of capital vs 100% reduction in security cover.
The Receiver's abstract of receipts and payments document filed at CH in September implied that funds to be remitted to Lendy would be c. 70% of the loan's capital.
Implication must be that the Lendy T&C waterfall for fee deduction first has been applied ....
Though some of these loans were supposedly covered by the PF, right, which ought to then be funded by any fees Lendy siphons off? Haven't read the T&Cs recently, and I know that this obviously isn't going to happen...
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139 
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Nov 15, 2019 16:05:15 GMT
is it to much to ask/expect a breakdown of where our money is disappearing to on each loan as these dont seem like partial repayments when 100% of the security is gone.how does this waterfall business work and are we at the bottom of it.seems more like niagra falls or a monsoon with most of our money being washed away without any explanation of who is receiving/taking what on the way down.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 15, 2019 16:11:49 GMT
is it to much to ask/expect a breakdown of where our money is disappearing to on each loan as these dont seem like partial repayments when 100% of the security is gone.how does this waterfall business work and are we at the bottom of it.seems more like niagra falls or a monsoon with most of our money being washed away without any explanation of who is receiving/taking what on the way down. according to email just sent, they will provide this next week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Nov 15, 2019 16:25:31 GMT
is it to much to ask/expect a breakdown of where our money is disappearing to on each loan as these dont seem like partial repayments when 100% of the security is gone.how does this waterfall business work and are we at the bottom of it.seems more like niagra falls or a monsoon with most of our money being washed away without any explanation of who is receiving/taking what on the way down. according to email just sent, they will provide this next week. Distribution breakdown The Joint Administrators will shortly circulate an update explaining how the loan realisations are being distributed, following legal advice received. Unless you got a different email or an additional one I will not be holding my breath on next week, in my experience shortly can be a very long time.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 15, 2019 17:07:07 GMT
Partial repayment (R1) now credited to our accounts, but just 46.6% of capital vs 100% reduction in security cover.
The Receiver's abstract of receipts and payments document filed at CH in September implied that funds to be remitted to Lendy would be c. 70% of the loan's capital.
Implication must be that the Lendy T&C waterfall for fee deduction first has been applied ....
Though some of these loans were supposedly covered by the PF, right, which ought to then be funded by any fees Lendy siphons off? Haven't read the T&Cs recently, and I know that this obviously isn't going to happen... Well, in the spirit of optimism there is still half a million to be redistributed so if you ask Liam nicely he might allocate it your way ... metaphorically
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 15, 2019 17:49:02 GMT
according to email just sent, they will provide this next week. Distribution breakdown The Joint Administrators will shortly circulate an update explaining how the loan realisations are being distributed, following legal advice received. Unless you got a different email or an additional one I will not be holding my breath on next week, in my experience shortly can be a very long time. no, I was being overly optimistic, which isn't like me; it has been a tough week so I was holding out for any chink of light I could find
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Nov 15, 2019 23:56:42 GMT
Partial repayment (R1) now credited to our accounts, but just 46.6% of capital vs 100% reduction in security cover.
The Receiver's abstract of receipts and payments document filed at CH in September implied that funds to be remitted to Lendy would be c. 70% of the loan's capital.
Implication must be that the Lendy T&C waterfall for fee deduction first has been applied ....
As requested above, can someone point me to a thread/post explaining the waterfall analogy?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 16, 2019 0:20:57 GMT
Partial repayment (R1) now credited to our accounts, but just 46.6% of capital vs 100% reduction in security cover.
The Receiver's abstract of receipts and payments document filed at CH in September implied that funds to be remitted to Lendy would be c. 70% of the loan's capital.
Implication must be that the Lendy T&C waterfall for fee deduction first has been applied ....
As requested above, can someone point me to a thread/post explaining the waterfall analogy? Probably best to wait for the explanation from RSM which will be based on the legal interpretation they have received.
In brief the waterfall is simply the order in which calls on recovery payments are made. First off is the costs and fees incurrent by the administrator or receiver of the borrower/asset. The crucial bit is the next to be satisfied under the most recent platform T&C's is the default interest & penalty fees due to Lendy. If a loan has been in default a long time, then a large amount of default interest will have accrued. This is paid to Lendy (or now "Lendy in Administration"), third is lenders capital, and then if any funds are left fourth lender interest, and finally lender bonuses.
The hope had been that these manifestly unfair T&C's would have been set aside by RSM in favour of a much smaller deduction to build a pot to cover their fees. Unfortunately it appears, at least for now, that the legal advice is that RSM must deduct the full amounts due under the T&C's we agreed to. We can only hope that some sense prevails before this money is paid to the unsecured creditors of Lendy (which happens to include many of us as model 1 loan participants).
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Nov 16, 2019 0:27:10 GMT
Partial repayment (R1) now credited to our accounts, but just 46.6% of capital vs 100% reduction in security cover. The Receiver's abstract of receipts and payments document filed at CH in September implied that funds to be remitted to Lendy would be c. 70% of the loan's capital.
Implication must be that the Lendy T&C waterfall for fee deduction first has been applied .... As requested above, can someone point me to a thread/post explaining the waterfall analogy? I'm not sure there's a specific thread, and there are various posts about, but basically it's in the latest t&c's here Last updated: 11/07/2018 vis para 13.3 "
There is an issue about when and how the terms were introduced though and what was funded beforehand or what you may have invested in since the 'new' terms etc. As they are widely regarded as unfair it's a legal grey area, and RSM's is seeking advice on them. Lendy's default fees for late repayments are huge and increase with time.
some posts here
In Edit: + another just above mine 
|
|
|
|
Post by ericandy on Nov 16, 2019 10:19:26 GMT
Partial repayment (R1) now credited to our accounts, but just 46.6% of capital vs 100% reduction in security cover.
The Receiver's abstract of receipts and payments document filed at CH in September implied that funds to be remitted to Lendy would be c. 70% of the loan's capital.
Implication must be that the Lendy T&C waterfall for fee deduction first has been applied ....
Has anyone else not had the 46.6% credited to their account?
|
|
MarkT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 190
Likes: 159
|
Post by MarkT on Nov 16, 2019 12:08:51 GMT
As requested above, can someone point me to a thread/post explaining the waterfall analogy? I'm not sure there's a specific thread, and there are various posts about, but basically it's in the latest t&c's here Last updated: 11/07/2018 vis para 13.3 "
There is an issue about when and how the terms were introduced though and what was funded beforehand or what you may have invested in since the 'new' terms etc. As they are widely regarded as unfair it's a legal grey area, and RSM's is seeking advice on them. Lendy's default fees for late repayments are huge and increase with time.
some posts here
In Edit: + another just above mine
And a some individuals wrote to Lendy expressly rejecting the new terms. It will be interesting to see how those people fare compared to those of us that didn't do that
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Nov 16, 2019 12:11:33 GMT
If they're deemed unfair, they'll be unfair to all.. surely
|
|
MarkT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 190
Likes: 159
|
Post by MarkT on Nov 16, 2019 12:28:51 GMT
If they're deemed unfair, they'll be unfair to all.. surely
One would hope so but nothing is certain in this game.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 16, 2019 22:21:47 GMT
The hope had been that these manifestly unfair T&C's would have been set aside by RSM in favour of a much smaller deduction to build a pot to cover their fees. Unfortunately it appears, at least for now, that the legal advice is that RSM must deduct the full amounts due under the T&C's we agreed to. We can only hope that some sense prevails before this money is paid to the unsecured creditors of Lendy (which happens to include many of us as model 1 loan participants). Personally, I'd prefer to phrase that a little more optimistically - that it appears RSM do not yet feel free to release to us monies where other claims exist that have not yet been overturned in any legal process...
The "missing" amounts are clearly in dispute - one set of parties (the lenders/investors, and especially those who explicitly rejected the "unfair" revision to the T&Cs) expects it to be paid to them, and a different set of parties (creditors, including not only LB and his mates, but also some others who have little to do with P2P such as a mobile phone service provider), expects to receive everything legally due to them without it being diverted to the first set of parties.
It seems to me that RSM cannot distribute the disputed amounts to any party until the dispute is resolved, and do not consider themselves empowered to unilaterally rule on the dispute - i.e. the "interim payment" would be of the undisputed amount that would still be due to us even under the most unfair interpretation of the "unfair" T&Cs.
It's just a shame that they've (so far) seemingly followed Lendy's approach of providing payments with no indication of how the amount was determined, or justification of any deductions made. I look forward to better communications being provided in the coming days/weeks when their staff have finally managed to get the ridiculous AML fiasco out of the way and have more time to focus on their real job of recovering our money!
|
|
