mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666 
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 12, 2018 20:24:51 GMT
RR were paid before the co. went into administration. There is no way that will come back. There will be costs in defending the court action, as well as in the Administration. Except... "Due to the restrictions imposed by the Court following the FCA application the above monies have been placed into individual client accounts and cannot be utilised by any party until the legal matters are concluded." So the money has been taken back, at least temporarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by notascooby on Apr 12, 2018 20:36:10 GMT
No disrespect intended but having seen their letter head it reminds me of a homeopathic remedy, or possibly a sports drink. Yes and I need 5 bottles a day of it to keep my energy levels up to get through this situation we are suffering. And before bed tonight I will be pouring a large vodka and refresh recovery. Apparently it is a brand of compression tights.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 12, 2018 20:36:17 GMT
RR were paid before the co. went into administration. There is no way that will come back. There will be costs in defending the court action, as well as in the Administration. Except... "Due to the restrictions imposed by the Court following the FCA application the above monies have been placed into individual client accounts and cannot be utilised by any party until the legal matters are concluded." So the money has been taken back, at least temporarily. No Collateral staff to pay as well
|
|
elsee
Member of DD Central
Retired:D
Posts: 201 
Likes: 117
|
Post by elsee on Apr 12, 2018 20:40:00 GMT
The situation is a farce. We should not be general creditors of Collateral in relation to the value of the loans that we hold. We should be treated as creditors only to the extent that Collateral has misplaced or misappropriated any funds that should be held in the client account, either because those funds have not been lent or because payments of capital or interest have been received. And they can’t cross-collateralise the loan book. Any other course of action makes a mockery of the whole concept of peer to peer lending. Your assuming that there is a client account and that the P2P agreements are valid in the standard form. It is quite possible that as Coll were unregulated neither is the case so let's wait & find out what the actual position is once the administrator is confirmed in office (whoever it is) My deposits went to an account named Collateral client account. Didn't yours?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 12, 2018 21:44:42 GMT
RR were paid before the co. went into administration. There is no way that will come back. There will be costs in defending the court action, as well as in the Administration. Except... "Due to the restrictions imposed by the Court following the FCA application the above monies have been placed into individual client accounts and cannot be utilised by any party until the legal matters are concluded." So the money has been taken back, at least temporarily. Not sure about 'taken back'. 'The remaining £48,000 was paid to Refresh Recovery to cover the pre-appointment costs of
dealing with the Group.'
So, paid to RR by the co. before going into Administration and to cover work already done. A typical pre-pack practice, I understand. When they say 'individual client accounts', my guess is that would be client accounts within RR for RR's clients, not Col's client accounts.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 13, 2018 5:36:09 GMT
Except... "Due to the restrictions imposed by the Court following the FCA application the above monies have been placed into individual client accounts and cannot be utilised by any party until the legal matters are concluded." So the money has been taken back, at least temporarily. Not sure about 'taken back'. 'The remaining £48,000 was paid to Refresh Recovery to cover the pre-appointment costs of
dealing with the Group.'
So, paid to RR by the co. before going into Administration and to cover work already done. A typical pre-pack practice, I understand. When they say 'individual client accounts', my guess is that would be client accounts within RR for RR's clients, not Col's client accounts.
Yes, it wouldn't have been placed in the client account where our money resides, but regardless of that the court is not allowing it to be used by RR for the stated purpose and it may be returned depending on what the court decides.
|
|
|
|
Post by angrykittens on Apr 13, 2018 7:56:18 GMT
Sorry. Was it just me who got an email yesterday at 14:07 “Update to investors.pdf” starting “To Dear Sir/Madam,” etc dated 12 April 2018 ? No, you might want to read the last 4 pages or so. Plenty of speculation to catch up on!
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 13, 2018 23:33:13 GMT
The latest email from RR states that all COL investors are considered to be creditors of COL. I thought that’s exactly what we were not. As I understood it, we were never lending money to COL but were lending money direct to the borrowers and we are still owed by the borrowers.
This whole matter since COL entered administration has been shambolic. I do think RR should be replaced, they’re clearly not up to the job.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Apr 14, 2018 3:12:54 GMT
I'm concerned that this new designation as 'creditors' will now put investors in a position where their invested funds are no longer ring-fenced with administrators then using these funds to pay themselves. Does that make sense?
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 14, 2018 6:26:59 GMT
Before the FCA got involved, RR did not want to consider us creditors. They prepared a report to that effect. The FCA prevented them from releasing said report and some weeks later, RR issued a statement heavily influenced by the FCA considering us creditors.
Whether or not this change of stance has come about due to some change to the way in which we are to be treated in practical terms is anyone's guess at this point. As creditors, we have additional rights during insolvency proceedings, but we are likely to receive less if the insolvency moves into liquidation.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 14, 2018 8:30:16 GMT
The two are not mutually exclusive. You may be investors (or lenders) in the case of loans which are drawn down in proper p2p fashion. And you may be creditors for unallocated interest payments and deposits held in a pot (if such exists).
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 14, 2018 8:31:02 GMT
If we are now considered creditors of COL I’d say we’re looking at heavy or total loss. Actually, the minute I heard COL were forced into administration I immediately thought game over, total loss. A lot of other members on this forum disagreed with me and I hope to goodness they are right.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 14, 2018 8:32:24 GMT
The two are not mutually exclusive. You may be investors (or lenders) in the case of loans which are drawn down in proper p2p fashion. And you may be creditors for unallocated interest payments and deposits held in a pot (if such exists). But that’s not what the RR email said. The RR email said ALL investors are considered to be creditors.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 738
Likes: 861
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 14, 2018 8:34:06 GMT
The two are not mutually exclusive. You may be investors (or lenders) in the case of loans which are drawn down in proper p2p fashion. And you may be creditors for unallocated interest payments and deposits held in a pot (if such exists). But that’s not what the RR email said. The RR email said ALL investors are considered to be creditors. Yes and a short time before that an RR Notice said there were no creditors ....
|
|
snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Apr 14, 2018 9:10:18 GMT
Before the FCA got involved, RR did not want to consider us creditors. They prepared a report to that effect. The FCA prevented them from releasing said report and some weeks later, RR issued a statement heavily influenced by the FCA considering us creditors. Whether or not this change of stance has come about due to some change to the way in which we are to be treated in practical terms is anyone's guess at this point. As creditors, we have additional rights during insolvency proceedings, but we are likely to receive less if the insolvency moves into liquidation. I'm not sure that is the case. The situation was confusing in that report, as we were included under section 5.4 'Creditors'. They appeared to create a new category of creditors just for us 
|
|
