|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 11:25:47 GMT
Then I suggest you stand for parliament, you have no locus in court. Would you vote for the Locus of Democracy if I did?   Doesn't matter what should be democracy or otherwise, I am talking of the narrow legal point of locus in a court case
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144 
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Mar 30, 2018 11:33:03 GMT
RR seem to think that investors are creditors - they are included in section 5 - and indeed according to the report there are no other creditors for the Creditor's Report to go to. However they have not sent the report to investors (except possibly stub8535 ?) Yes I found that a bit odd too. They also state: "the Directors advised that the Group was unable to pay its debts when they fell due and consequently was insolvent".Yet as you say, in the Creditors section: 5.4.2 Secured Creditors
The Group has no registered secured creditors.
5.4.3 Unsecured Creditors
The Group has no unsecured creditors as all trade and expense creditors have been paid up to date.
5.4.4 Investors
The Group has 1132 investors who have secured investments against the various properties chattels and assets of the Group, these investments amount to £17,538,817.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 30, 2018 11:33:26 GMT
I think some of the wilder conspiracy theorists need to just take a breath; Col made a naïve mistake with the FCA authorisation but given how bureaucratic & time consuming the whole process clearly is (just read the experience of MT & AC as a couple of examples) I can see how they would be keen on avoiding it. Legal advice was never going to be enough cover but they clearly had ongoing dialogue with the FCA but that eventually failed & given the unfortunate situation they then found themselves in they did the responsible thing by appointing the administrator, who has confirmed that they actually ran the business correctly - all assets, money & loans are present & accounted for. The administrator has proposed a sensible plan to return lenders funds & appears to be ready to implement it; which would mean a great result in a short period of time at no cost to lenders (£48k fee has already been paid out of Col funds).
Administrators are strictly regulated & take their responsibilities very seriously in my experience & I put no stock in the claim that because Col appointed them they are some how unsuitable for the job, all the evidence currently available shows they have done both an efficient & effective job that will benefit lenders. The FCA are delaying the process, rightly or wrongly to make an example of how seriously they take firms operating without their explicit approval, will that get our money back any quicker, clearly not, will the FCA proposed administrator do a better job than the existing one, I very much doubt it, as they will have to repeat what has already been achieved.
Overall I think Col management have been foolish & naïve but no more than that & am satisfied they have acted in good faith. I have sympathy for the 5 members of staff who will likely lose their jobs, the FCA intervention will inevitable delay the return of investors funds which I am unhappy with but however the court case goes I believe anyone with cash, pawn, cars & even residential property on the platform will see 100% returned. My worry would be that some of the development loans may face difficulties, so whilst I am not personally exposed to any I feel some concern for those who are but they were always going to be the riskiest investments with or without the platform failure.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 11:44:27 GMT
It is indeed - and the 'small firm of Insolvency Practitioners' (Court appointed that is - so I suggest totally legitimate), 'with associations (or not?) to an unregulated financial business (allegedly)' will get my vote pretty much every time over the incompetent, faceless and self-serving bureaucrats of the FCA.
I hope I haven't been too subtle there?
I share your misgivings about the FCA. I have been consistently critical of their role in all this from the moment I learned of the "regulatory problems". However... The information in our possession suggests COL was trading unlawfully when it was put in administration. The current administrator cannot lawfully operate the business without FCA approval The FCA does not want to give approval to the current administrator The court likely cannot compel the FCA to give approval to the current administrator Therefore, the range of options open to the current administrator is likely to be very limited - if it has any at all. If it is the FCA's intention to replace the administrator with one who they will duly authorise to operate the business, this appears on the face of it to be a highly attractive option. The downside is that we have unverified conjecture that our capital (which all information suggests is ring-fenced from business assets) will be used to meet the replacement administrator's costs. On the basis of what we currently know, my preference would be for the existing administrator to finalise and execute what appears to be the optimal solution for all involved, but if that is no longer possible appointment of a different administrator might be the least worst alternative.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 30, 2018 12:16:02 GMT
It is indeed - and the 'small firm of Insolvency Practitioners' (Court appointed that is - so I suggest totally legitimate), 'with associations (or not?) to an unregulated financial business (allegedly)' will get my vote pretty much every time over the incompetent, faceless and self-serving bureaucrats of the FCA.
I hope I haven't been too subtle there?
I share your misgivings about the FCA. I have been consistently critical of their role in all this from the moment I learned of the "regulatory problems". However... The information in our possession suggests COL was trading unlawfully when it was put in administration. The current administrator cannot lawfully operate the business without FCA approval The FCA does not want to give approval to the current administrator The court likely cannot compel the FCA to give approval to the current administrator Therefore, the range of options open to the current administrator is likely to be very limited - if it has any at all. If it is the FCA's intention to replace the administrator with one who they will duly authorise to operate the business, this appears on the face of it to be a highly attractive option. The downside is that we have unverified conjecture that our capital (which all information suggests is ring-fenced from business assets) will be used to meet the replacement administrator's costs.
On the basis of what we currently know, my preference would be for the existing administrator to finalise and execute what appears to be the optimal solution for all involved, but if that is no longer possible appointment of a different administrator might be the least worst alternative. I wonder to whom we can turn to verify whether our capital (and pending interest payments) are indeed ring-fenced with respect to future administrator's costs. Establishing this would seem to be a priority. The issue here though is where to address such questions.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354 
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 30, 2018 12:22:11 GMT
It is indeed - and the 'small firm of Insolvency Practitioners' (Court appointed that is - so I suggest totally legitimate), 'with associations (or not?) to an unregulated financial business (allegedly)' will get my vote pretty much every time over the incompetent, faceless and self-serving bureaucrats of the FCA.
I hope I haven't been too subtle there?
I share your misgivings about the FCA. I have been consistently critical of their role in all this from the moment I learned of the "regulatory problems". However... The information in our possession suggests COL was trading unlawfully when it was put in administration. The current administrator cannot lawfully operate the business without FCA approval The FCA does not want to give approval to the current administrator The court likely cannot compel the FCA to give approval to the current administrator Therefore, the range of options open to the current administrator is likely to be very limited - if it has any at all. If it is the FCA's intention to replace the administrator with one who they will duly authorise to operate the business, this appears on the face of it to be a highly attractive option. The downside is that we have unverified conjecture that our capital (which all information suggests is ring-fenced from business assets) will be used to meet the replacement administrator's costs. On the basis of what we currently know, my preference would be for the existing administrator to finalise and execute what appears to be the optimal solution for all involved, but if that is no longer possible appointment of a different administrator might be the least worst alternative. At the end of the day I doubt the FCA will not get their way - it will likely be perceived by them as a jurisdictional precedent which they cannot be allowed to lose - so I suspect they stamp their feet and wave the regulatory card up to and including the highest courts to get their way should it prove necessary (whilst we wait of course).
We'll now have to await the outcome of the April court hearing I guess - anybody know the exact date?
I do hope the FCA isn't too 'in bed' with the (very shiny and expensive) entity they wish to appoint? N.B. rearrange: cheek tongue in?
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 30, 2018 12:32:25 GMT
Can we expect the FCA to make available a report of their views and decisions? If so, when and where might that be?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 30, 2018 12:44:03 GMT
RR seem to think that investors are creditors - they are included in section 5 - and indeed according to the report there are no other creditors for the Creditor's Report to go to. However they have not sent the report to investors (except possibly stub8535 ?) Yes I found that a bit odd too. They also state: "the Directors advised that the Group was unable to pay its debts when they fell due and consequently was insolvent".Yet as you say, in the Creditors section: 5.4.2 Secured Creditors
The Group has no registered secured creditors.
5.4.3 Unsecured Creditors
The Group has no unsecured creditors as all trade and expense creditors have been paid up to date.
5.4.4 Investors
The Group has 1132 investors who have secured investments against the various properties chattels and assets of the Group, these investments amount to £17,538,817. Yes, having read the report it does seem that the administration was pre-emptive of an anticipated and unavoidable future insolvent position. The company chooses the timing and the administrator. I believe it is still legitimate (rxdav).
(the court will decide and apply the law - without favouring FCA, things are not yet that bad here)
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 12:45:59 GMT
If it is the FCA's intention to replace the administrator with one who they will duly authorise to operate the business, this appears on the face of it to be a highly attractive option. The downside is that we have unverified conjecture that our capital (which all information suggests is ring-fenced from business assets) will be used to meet the replacement administrator's costs.I wonder to whom we can turn to verify whether our capital (and pending interest payments) are indeed ring-fenced with respect to future administrator's costs. Establishing this would seem to be a priority. The issue here though is where to address such questions. I very much doubt they are ring-fenced with respect to future administrator's costs. They may be ring-fenced from business assets and it may follow that business assets should be used first by the administrator prior to fees being taken from our capital. In the absence of FCA interference, it appears that's exactly how things would have worked. The prevailing administrator would be in the best position to verify whether or not our assets and capital are indeed ring-fenced, and the current one has made representations that this is indeed the case. If there is any question as to whether or not our capital can be used to meet costs before all business assets have run out, then I expect that to be material to the court case and I'd imagine an insolvency practitioner would have an awareness of what is allowed. Since you bring up pending interest payments, I would suggest they hang delicately in the balance, given that they are the product of potentially criminal activity.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 30, 2018 12:49:34 GMT
Can we expect the FCA to make available a report of their views and decisions? If so, when and where might that be? Crikey - not sure if that's serious or tongue in cheek (genuinely)? This is the FCA we're talking about - you are a mere citizen with a vested interest in this recovery i.e. you and I will be very low down the list of priorities the FCA will have here I suspect? Given what we do know I find it unlikely that the FCA would come out of an independent enquiry into this whole debacle without some egg on face. Now, the FCA is staffed by bureaucrats - for whom there is no greater shame than getting egg on face. Getting it wrong is OK - happens all the time - but actually getting caught getting it wrong if full public gaze - well, that's simply anathema. So, in answer to your question - I doubt it!
|
|
sjg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 67
Likes: 61
|
Post by sjg on Mar 30, 2018 12:57:26 GMT
Some interesting information in the report and why the administrators couldn't email a copy to all lenders I don't know rather than wait until it was in the public domain. Also a bit miffed that Collateral kept allowing us to put new funds into the site after the 21st Feb and waited until the end of the month before stopping access to the site. Would have saved me a few hundred quid.  |
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 30, 2018 12:59:18 GMT
Can we expect the FCA to make available a report of their views and decisions? If so, when and where might that be? Crikey - not sure if that's serious or tongue in cheek (genuinely)? This is the FCA we're talking about - you are a mere citizen with a vested interest in this recovery i.e. you and I will be very low down the list of priorities the FCA will have here I suspect? Given what we do know I find it unlikely that the FCA would come out of an independent enquiry into this whole debacle without some egg on face. Now, the FCA is staffed by bureaucrats - for whom there is no greater shame than getting egg on face. Getting it wrong is OK - happens all the time - but actually getting caught getting it wrong if full public gaze - well, that's simply anathema. So, in answer to your question - I doubt it! Somewhere between tongue in cheek, wishful thinking, and novice investor naivete, probably! .. and reasonable expectation of a first world democracy
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 30, 2018 13:05:08 GMT
I wonder to whom we can turn to verify whether our capital (and pending interest payments) are indeed ring-fenced with respect to future administrator's costs. Establishing this would seem to be a priority. The issue here though is where to address such questions. I very much doubt they are ring-fenced with respect to future administrator's costs. They may be ring-fenced from business assets and it may follow that business assets should be used first by the administrator prior to fees being taken from our capital. In the absence of FCA interference, it appears that's exactly how things would have worked. The prevailing administrator would be in the best position to verify whether or not our assets and capital are indeed ring-fenced, and the current one has made representations that this is indeed the case. If there is any question as to whether or not our capital can be used to meet costs before all business assets have run out, then I expect that to be material to the court case and I'd imagine an insolvency practitioner would have an awareness of what is allowed. Since you bring up pending interest payments, I would suggest they hang delicately in the balance, given that they are the product of potentially criminal activity.Fighting words! If one were to sue the platform, would that ensure status as a creditor rather than an investor? (Sorry, I'm trying to find some misplaced humour in somewhat dire straits!)
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 13:28:20 GMT
Since you bring up pending interest payments, I would suggest they hang delicately in the balance, given that they are the product of potentially criminal activity.Fighting words! If one were to sue the platform, would that ensure status as a creditor rather than an investor? (Sorry, I'm trying to find some misplaced humour in somewhat dire straits!)  well if one was considering taking legal action, one might look at the statement of affairs in the administrator's report and conclude that there is unlikely to be anything left by the time one received a judgement. But perhaps another organisation (with a three letter acronym) was instrumental in causing one to enter into this mess. As an aside, it occurs to me that if there is a course of action that could ostensibly result in the company being put into liquidation, the piercing of the corporate veil and pursuit of the directors personal assets. Our friendly administrator is unlikely to steer the ship towards this course of action, whereas I wonder what the intentions of the FCA-preferred administrator would be.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,808
Likes: 3,242
|
Post by jonno on Mar 30, 2018 13:38:44 GMT
I'm struggling to understand where this assertion re the almost certain use of investor's funds to pay administration costs has sprung from, but doesn't this (IMHO) scaremongering ignore the fact that whilst the loan book is extant there is a not insubstantial income stream being generated re the interest spread.
I'm ready to be shot down in flames if this is naïve drivel.
|
|
well if one was considering taking legal action, one might look at the statement of affairs in the administrator's report and conclude that there is unlikely to be anything left by the time one received a judgement. But perhaps another organisation (with a three letter acronym) was instrumental in causing one to enter into this mess.