11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 740 
Likes: 863
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 1, 2018 15:31:41 GMT
Ok thanks , so cash in account and investment in pre-drawn down loans should be treated as ring fenced ? No, I don't think so. There's nothing to suggest the clients account does not contain enough to cover the cash balances held by investors at this time, but it definitely does not contain enough to account for the investments made into pre-drawn down loans - based on our understanding of which these were from the snapshot taken on 25th Feb. So we don't know where that money is or whether it could be considered ring fenced. The "cash at bank" figure suggests it is not in the collateral group bank accounts. Thanks , so technically speaking anyone that was holding cash or an investment in a pre-drawn down loan should announce themselves as a creditor ?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Apr 1, 2018 15:35:12 GMT
WARNING to those lenders with investments in loans that have NOT drawn-down
I estimate there is at least £40,000 worth of pre-drawdown interest owed to lenders. It is unlikely these loans will drawdown, and therefore the pre-drawdown interest may not be ring fenced. If you want to claim the pre-drawdown interest then I think you should claim as a creditor and probably before April 6th. Ok thanks , so cash in account and investment in pre-drawn down loans should be treated as ring fenced ? I don't think anyone knows not least the incumbent Administrator, he certainly failed to mention them in his report of 23 March and accompanying Statement of Affairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Apr 1, 2018 15:37:49 GMT
Ok thanks , so cash in account and investment in pre-drawn down loans should be treated as ring fenced ? No, I don't think so. There's nothing to suggest the clients account does not contain enough to cover the cash balances held by investors at this time, but it definitely does not contain enough to account for the investments made into pre-drawn down loans - based on our understanding of which these were from the snapshot taken on 25th Feb. So we don't know where that money is or whether it could be considered ring fenced. The "cash at bank" figure suggests it is not in the collateral group bank accounts. I posted on DDC that according to my records (snapshot taken on 25th Feb) there was £1,657k currently allocated but not drawndown: - BL00087 & BL00088: 2 x Blackpool [fully funded £125k] - BL00079 1-4: Chesterfield [fully funded £1,460k] - DL00034-39: Bolton 26th-31st drawdown [26th drawdown fully funded £100k, 27th-31st drawdown funded £72,268.30, available £427,731.70] This excludes accrued interest & cashback.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 1, 2018 15:47:05 GMT
No, I don't think so. There's nothing to suggest the clients account does not contain enough to cover the cash balances held by investors at this time, but it definitely does not contain enough to account for the investments made into pre-drawn down loans - based on our understanding of which these were from the snapshot taken on 25th Feb. So we don't know where that money is or whether it could be considered ring fenced. The "cash at bank" figure suggests it is not in the collateral group bank accounts. Thanks , so technically speaking anyone that was holding cash or an investment in a pre-drawn down loan should announce themselves as a creditor ? For cash available to withdraw at the time the website shut down, no, for accrued interest on pre-drawn down loans (payable by COL not the borrower) technically yes, for capital in pre-drawn down loans maybe.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Apr 1, 2018 16:33:41 GMT
Thanks , so technically speaking anyone that was holding cash or an investment in a pre-drawn down loan should announce themselves as a creditor ? For cash available to withdraw at the time the website shut down, no, for accrued interest on pre-drawn down loans (payable by COL not the borrower) technically yes, for capital in pre-drawn down loans maybe. I do not understand why Jessica and Craig had NOT clarified to the investors the situation of those pre-drawn-down funds at all. It looks completely missing on their report.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 1, 2018 16:45:32 GMT
For cash available to withdraw at the time the website shut down, no, for accrued interest on pre-drawn down loans (payable by COL not the borrower) technically yes, for capital in pre-drawn down loans maybe. I do not understand why Jessica and Craig had NOT clarified to the investors the situation of those pre-drawn-down funds at all. It looks completely missing on their report. Remember that the report is not written for the investors - in fact we shouldn't even be in possession of it. However, I'd have thought one of the first jobs of an administrator with an understanding of the nature of the situation would be to perform a full reconciliation of all of the non-business assets and funds and communicate his findings to investors. Investors could then take a view as to whether they should register as unsecured creditors. At the moment all we have is an official communication from the administrator suggesting we are not creditors and a leaked report suggesting otherwise.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Apr 1, 2018 16:49:39 GMT
I do not understand why Jessica and Craig had NOT clarified to the investors the situation of those pre-drawn-down funds at all. It looks completely missing on their report. Remember that the report is not written for the investors - in fact we shouldn't even be in possession of it. However, I'd have thought one of the first jobs of an administrator with an understanding of the nature of the situation would be to perform a full reconciliation of all of the non-business assets and funds and communicate his findings to investors. Investors could then take a view as to whether they should register as unsecured creditors. We should or should not in possession of this report is out of the question when this is now in the public. But I felt the administrator had never published their reconciliation results to investors and consequently potentially simply let investor’s right laps is totally unacceptable.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 1, 2018 16:52:16 GMT
Remember that the report is not written for the investors - in fact we shouldn't even be in possession of it. However, I'd have thought one of the first jobs of an administrator with an understanding of the nature of the situation would be to perform a full reconciliation of all of the non-business assets and funds and communicate his findings to investors. Investors could then take a view as to whether they should register as unsecured creditors. We should or should not in possession of this report is out of the question when this is now in the public. But I felt the administrator had never published their reconciliation results to investors and consequently potentially simply let investor’s right laps is totally unacceptable. Agreed, but there could be a silver lining in that a change in administrator could restart the process from the beginning.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 1, 2018 16:57:27 GMT
The pre-draw-down funds are presumably the lender deposits against loans which were in the process of being filled or drawn down but not drawn down or returned when the co went into administration. If they are not accounted for in the administrator's report, then it would be prudent to work on the basis that they were not held by any of the cos in administration at the time the cos went into administration. If lenders have not been told where that cash is 'resting' then it is surely worth claiming that principal as a creditor. Until such time as you know where that cash is and that it is ring-fenced in client accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Apr 1, 2018 17:10:58 GMT
The pre-draw-down funds are presumably the lender deposits against loans which were in the process of being filled or drawn down but not drawn down or returned when the co went into administration. If they are not accounted for in the administrator's report, then it would be prudent to work on the basis that they were not held by any of the cos in administration at the time the cos went into administration. If lenders have not been told where that cash is 'resting' then it is surely worth claiming that principal as a creditor. Until such time as you know where that cash is and that it is ring-fenced in client accounts. it would not be "prudent" to assume anything. The situation requires clarification from someone who knows, in this case the Administrator.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 1, 2018 17:20:53 GMT
dualinvestor of course you are right, but do you really think that this administrator is going to clarify the position further before 6th April? I was only meaning that it would be prudent to assume the most disadvantageous interpretation and to act accordingly. I am pleased to read your post above.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Apr 1, 2018 17:21:35 GMT
I don't see anywhere reference to compliance with paragraph.47 of schedule B1
"47(1)As soon as is reasonably practicable after appointment the administrator of a company shall by notice in the prescribed form require one or more relevant persons to provide the administrator with a statement of the affairs of the company. "
So basically we are relying on a statement of affairs concocted by a frim that has less than a month's formal involvement with the company.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 1, 2018 17:47:12 GMT
I've been thinking, something that I do from time to time. A few thoughts if I may?: Ongoing theorising by respected members may not prove helpful to our collective position considering circumstances vs Collateral's pre-shutdown regulatory position, our loans and the apparent desire of the FCA to replace the current Collateral appointed Administrator with one appointed by themselves. It may seem reasonable to suggest that further discussion here may be unhelpful to bringing about progress toward returning our invested funds, in all essence our theorising may prejudice this process to our lesser greater detriment. Please consider carefully what you are writing before you post or better still not posting at all until we have been provided with a clear statement about the future direction of the Collateral Administration process particularly as it relates to our lent funds and the contracts associated with these. In desiring 'best outcome' for ourselves we may need to remain silent for now. You can't be serious....I mean what will dualinvestor do all day if he can't post Just teasing! After all it is April 1st
|
|
k6
Posts: 266
Likes: 161
|
Post by k6 on Apr 1, 2018 18:38:14 GMT
" We're fortunate and I'm grateful that there are people here with so much more experience of such situations than could be expected of the average lender. "
Amen ...
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Apr 1, 2018 19:06:26 GMT
THREAD LOCKED.
We've had several reported posts but I've not got the time to deal with them at this moment (I'm the only mod online).
I've not read the thread since posting earlier but please keep the discussion to the facts. Thank you
|
|
