mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666 
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Jun 13, 2018 17:46:00 GMT
The issue of irrecoverable details (whilst massive) is not the reason BDO have given for making us creditors. It is very likely that many investors could reasonably prove their exact secured debts, meaning it would not be a 'catch-all'. The reason given is s26 - which is where FCA messed up. That being the case, there would now be direct causation between FCA error and any losses (when crystallised). Day 1 - Hear about Col. Day 2 - Check FCA register - says authorised with interim permission Is this confirmed? Which exact company were authorised with interim permission? And what exactly did they have permission for? My understanding is that Regal Pawnbrokers Ltd (not Col themselves) only held "interim permission to enter into a regulated credit agreement as lender and to exercise, or have the right to exercise, the lender’s rights and duties under a regulated credit agreement." And, according to the FCA "These are unlikely to cover the activities carried on by a peer-to-peer lender. The permission lapsed, in the absence of an application for authorisation by Regal Pawnbroker Ltd, on 31 March 2016." Do we have a screenshot or something that suggests Col were registered with the right permission? Sorry if I've missed something. The IP record was edited to read Collateral(UK) Limited instead of Regal Pawnbroker Limited. It turns out registered firms can edit their own details on the register. However, the permissions are as you describe - unlikely to cover the activities carried on by a P2P lender. There is a screenshot showing COL as the Firm Name floating around this site somewhere. The full register includes company number, which can be cross-checked, but the interim register does not. Unfortunately, the register is there to help consumers decide if a firm is legitimate and which specific permissions entitle a firm to carry out specific activities is beyond most people, myself included until I educated myself following this debacle.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 13, 2018 17:50:22 GMT
Is this confirmed? Which exact company were authorised with interim permission? And what exactly did they have permission for? My understanding is that Regal Pawnbrokers Ltd (not Col themselves) only held "interim permission to enter into a regulated credit agreement as lender and to exercise, or have the right to exercise, the lender’s rights and duties under a regulated credit agreement." And, according to the FCA "These are unlikely to cover the activities carried on by a peer-to-peer lender. The permission lapsed, in the absence of an application for authorisation by Regal Pawnbroker Ltd, on 31 March 2016." Do we have a screenshot or something that suggests Col were registered with the right permission? Sorry if I've missed something. The IP record was edited to read Collateral(UK) Limited instead of Regal Pawnbroker Limited. It turns out registered firms can edit their own details on the register. However, the permissions are as you describe - unlikely to cover the activities carried on by a P2P lender. There is a screenshot showing COL as the Firm Name floating around this site somewhere. Unfortunately, the register is there to help consumers decide if a firm is legitimate and which specific permissions entitle a firm to carry out specific activities is beyond most people, myself included.Quite - which is my point in relation to the discussion on claiming relief against P2P interest.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Jun 13, 2018 17:56:11 GMT
The parties to the security agreements are the borrower, the Security Trustee (Collateral Security Trustee) and the lender Collateral Agent Limited (on whose behalf the ST holds the security). Collateral Agent Limited is not subject to the administration of BDO AFAIA.
Erm!!
Well, this will be a test to demonstrate if the Administrators can make it all work to recover the money. In order for BL00073 (now funded on FS) to refinance, the 1st charge security has to be released to FS, which requires the cooperation of Collateral Agent Limited, if I am understanding correctly. Fingers crossed!
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Jun 13, 2018 17:56:17 GMT
The IP record was edited to read Collateral(UK) Limited instead of Regal Pawnbroker Limited. It turns out registered firms can edit their own details on the register. However, the permissions are as you describe - unlikely to cover the activities carried on by a P2P lender. There is a screenshot showing COL as the Firm Name floating around this site somewhere. Unfortunately, the register is there to help consumers decide if a firm is legitimate and which specific permissions entitle a firm to carry out specific activities is beyond most people, myself included.Quite - which is my point in relation to the discussion on claiming relief against P2P interest. There are well-founded opinions on a number of issues, but little is conclusive at this point. So I tend to agree, It's good to keep a range of options open.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 13, 2018 18:54:24 GMT
Not sure the statement of affairs (which many directors never provide in any case) is necessarily the (only) trigger for the publication of a list of creditors - at some point be it in the administrators proposals document (due shortly) or in the six monthly progress reports thereafter I'd expect there to be a full list of creditors. (Non corporate creditors details may be partially readacted now due to GDPR, or aggregated into one line.)
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jun 13, 2018 18:58:32 GMT
The issue of irrecoverable details (whilst massive) is not the reason BDO have given for making us creditors. It is very likely that many investors could reasonably prove their exact secured debts, meaning it would not be a 'catch-all'. The reason given is s26 - which is where FCA messed up. That being the case, there would now be direct causation between FCA error and any losses (when crystallised). Day 1 - Hear about Col. Day 2 - Check FCA register - says authorised with interim permission Day 3 - I invest £10k Day 4 - oops, FCA were wrong, not authorised. Register changed. Day 5 - I am now a creditor of a failed business Day 6 - I lose 50% of my investment due to FCA error DAY 7 - I sue FCA for their incorrect register causing me losses I plan to write to the FCA to make it clear that a claim will be on their table the day after I crystallise any losses. FCA can avoid this by issuing "interim" permission as originally stated on their register. If others do the same they may actually LISTEN  If there is a large loss then some way to allow this as capital loss against P2P investments than Capital loss against capital gain which most people may not have would be a less mortal wound
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Jun 13, 2018 23:50:02 GMT
DAY 7 - I sue FCA for their incorrect register causing me losses How? The FCA has statutory immunity from liability for damages under the Financial Services Act 2012.
|
|
withnell
Member of DD Central
Posts: 550
Likes: 491
|
Post by withnell on Jun 14, 2018 5:35:52 GMT
DAY 7 - I sue FCA for their incorrect register causing me losses How? The FCA has statutory immunity from liability for damages under the Financial Services Act 2012. Could be used as a reasonable argument in court for loan agreements to be held as P2P, as both borrower and lender parties believed the company to be appropriately authorised to intermediate such business
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Jun 14, 2018 7:58:14 GMT
In the BDO FAQ 11th June they refer to a proposal to creditors. I think it will be as follows;
BDO cant run the loan book, nor can they wind up the loan book as the money has legitimately been lent to borrowers and I doubt they could pay it back until the end of their agreements even if they wanted to
Therefore BDO will have a platform lined up to take over the loan book (BDO wont accept cherry picking) and once transferred will operate it alongside or integrated within their own loans. BDO will overlook the orderly transition
The new platform will need finance to set up the transition for administration, legal and IT changes. While they have not selected the loans but had them "imposed" on them the money invested as always is not theirs so risk is limited though there will probably be some legal arrangement to protect them against liability in the Col loans
BDO will need finance to overlook the transition until the administration is complete
Finance will come from lender interest. There wont be any interest paid to investors until the process is complete possibly early 2019. After that it is possible that lenders will have to accept a lower rate of interest as compensation to the new platform. There should be no financial hit to capital subject to the usual default problem inherent in ptop
The s26 issue is something of a concern but for a moment lets say there are creditors and there are lenders. The creditor side will continue with BDO until anyone with a legitimate claim against Col to be paid out until that side is complete. The lenders side will go to the new platform and will be managed as any other loan. Cash on account uninvested in lenders accounts will be repaid before hand over to the new platform
The word proposal implies there will be a choice but I cant see a vote because a rejection will require a second option which would likely be detrimental financially to lenders. One scenario is a complete refinance of the loan book which will be costly; again by a new platform and investors probably asked to contribute to costs, there would be new interest terms for the borrowers, with legal costs paid for, possibly reduced interest as a sweetener and much reduced level of interest to lenders. I cant see this as viable
There are lots of unknowns that have not come out yet; we dont know what these are
For a new platform I see only A or L big enough to do this
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 14, 2018 8:09:42 GMT
In the BDO FAQ 11th June they refer to a proposal to creditors. I think it will be as follows; BDO cant run the loan book, nor can they wind up the loan book as the money has legitimately been lent to borrowers and I doubt they could pay it back until the end of their agreements even if they wanted to Therefore BDO will have a platform lined up to take over the loan book (BDO wont accept cherry picking) and once transferred will operate it alongside or integrated within their own loans. BDO will overlook the orderly transition Except that FundingSecure have already picked (and now eaten/drawndown) a cherry already.
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Jun 14, 2018 8:25:34 GMT
In the BDO FAQ 11th June they refer to a proposal to creditors. I think it will be as follows; BDO cant run the loan book, nor can they wind up the loan book as the money has legitimately been lent to borrowers and I doubt they could pay it back until the end of their agreements even if they wanted to Therefore BDO will have a platform lined up to take over the loan book (BDO wont accept cherry picking) and once transferred will operate it alongside or integrated within their own loans. BDO will overlook the orderly transition Except that FundingSecure have already picked (and now eaten/drawndown) a cherry already. Not relevant; this loan was due for repayment in April this year anyway; it expired and another platform took it on, its nothing to do with transferring the loan book
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jun 14, 2018 8:29:41 GMT
DAY 7 - I sue FCA for their incorrect register causing me losses How? The FCA has statutory immunity from liability for damages under the Financial Services Act 2012. The FCA does have statutory immunity - but in relation to liability for damages only (and not in all circumstances). It does not have immunity from being sued. These might seem the same but they are not. Getting a Judgement that the FCA f***ed up - and that their register frankly cannot be relied upon - is going to be far more costly for them in the long run (financially and politically) then either a) paying us out the eventual shortfall (which may be a few million in total), or b) providing "limited interim permission" and just avoiding s26 altogether (which seems the most sensible course of action for everyone)
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 14, 2018 8:45:40 GMT
Except that FundingSecure have already picked (and now eaten/drawndown) a cherry already. Not relevant; this loan was due for repayment in April this year anyway; it expired and another platform took it on, its nothing to do with transferring the loan book I don't quite understand your reasoning. It's a loan that was on the Collateral loanbook that BDO have permitted to be re-financed. Also, lots of loans must be overdue/nearing term. So, how is that loan in particular or those loans in general not relevant? And at what point would they become relevant? That said, it's possible that another platform could take the rest on, sure. I can't quite see it myself though, I'm not sure any platform has the appetite in the current environment.
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Jun 14, 2018 8:57:29 GMT
Not relevant; this loan was due for repayment in April this year anyway; it expired and another platform took it on, its nothing to do with transferring the loan book I don't quite understand your reasoning. It's a loan that was on the Collateral loanbook that BDO have permitted to be re-financed. Also, lots of loans must be overdue/nearing term. So, how is that loan in particular or those loans in general not relevant? And at what point would they become relevant? That said, it's possible that another platform could take the rest on, sure. I can't quite see it myself though, I'm not sure any platform has the appetite in the current environment. The loan would have been paid back. The borrower refinanced with a different lender. Other loans may well be over running, others may have been paid back and not refinanced we dont know. Or refinanced and not spotted by anyone. The Bromyard loan was spotted by someone when it came up in FS otherwise it would have gone unnoticed. Any loans that have been repaid since Feb is all to the good of us lenders
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 14, 2018 9:09:11 GMT
I don't quite understand your reasoning. It's a loan that was on the Collateral loanbook that BDO have permitted to be re-financed. Also, lots of loans must be overdue/nearing term. So, how is that loan in particular or those loans in general not relevant? And at what point would they become relevant? That said, it's possible that another platform could take the rest on, sure. I can't quite see it myself though, I'm not sure any platform has the appetite in the current environment. The loan would have been paid back. The borrower refinanced with a different lender. Other loans may well be over running, others may have been paid back and not refinanced we dont know. Or refinanced and not spotted by anyone. The Bromyard loan was spotted by someone when it came up in FS otherwise it would have gone unnoticed. Any loans that have been repaid since Feb is all to the good of us lenders Well, we should be able to fairly rapidly spot any satisfaction of charges or new charges indicating refinancing on Companies House via tracking the borrowers SPV's. Will be interesting to see. I did a pass this morning and didn't immediately spot any other charge satisfactions or new charges, unfortunately.
|
|
