|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Jun 13, 2018 10:49:09 GMT
Then compare & contrast to the last RR statement "These investments are entirely secured against the relevant individual properties (& chattel assets) and consequently it was the intention of the Administrator is to distribute the monies in accordance with the relevant loan agreements which each individual had signed up to. Therefore when a loan was concluded and the balance of funds would be received into the Group and payment to the relevant investors would be made accordingly, however, this action cannot be undertaken at present due to the restrictions imposed by the Court." & "Administrator has received over 15 expresses of interest in buying all or part of the Group."
Many were unhappy with RR & their reservations may well have had some validity but RR understood the business model, had the cooperation of the staff/mgmt., had already reconciled all the loans & assets confirming all were in place & were even ready to start returning lenders funds; so all those who supported the FCA court action & BDO appointment need to ask themselves - where are we now & is that a better position than we were in with RR?
If RR were so on top of the financials how come the figures were all wrong in their report? At that point it became apparent to many lenders that there seemed to be funds missing and/or wrongly allocated, and/or wrongly accounted for. I lost all faith in RR at that point. Subsequently these concerns about RR's understanding of the finances have been confirmed. You will need to expand on what you believe was "all wrong" in their published report but just for clarity here is what they said;
"As of 23rd March 2018 the Group has loans outstanding of £15,624,628 which is secured against properties in the value of £23,552,400, of which each loan has a fixed charge in the name of Trustee against the relevant property. A schedule of the properties can be supplied on request. The Group loaned monies against other assets as well as property including jewellery, vehicles antiques and artwork. At the date of the Administration loans have been provided amounting to £1,678,071 secured against assets valued at £2,478,336. These assets are held by the Administrator in an independently owned safety deposit box, should the loans not be repaid in accordance with the loan agreements, the assets will be sold to enable the loans to be repaid. In the client account there is a balance of £395,404, which principally relates to 777 individuals who have deposited money amounting to £370,553, the business account held £376,113. 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."
In the subsequent court proceedings it was revealed £390k was withdrawn from the cash accounts, this may well have been "unauthorised" & will need to be followed up & I in no way condone or belittle it's importance but against the size of the loanbook £17.5m it is relative peanuts & in such a situation other accounting errors/oversights/mistakes maybe found but overall the picture looked pretty complete & as such I still fail to see where your total loss of faith comes from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 11:01:00 GMT
Have no fear, I'm sure that BDO will be extremely diligent, taking as much time as is needed to document every single penny in triplicate.
Whatever else happens, loanbook running down, borrowers taking flight, any shenanigans coming to light, it may not be pretty but at least it will be thoroughly documented.
Of course, whether there is anything left for anybody else after charging their fees for this meticulous paperwork is another thing entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 13, 2018 11:02:16 GMT
Morning, Given that the administrator yesterday determined that Collateral lenders would be classified as creditors to the business and that platform data may no longer be available, this places Collateral lenders in a somewhat difficult position. While this is not our concern, we do have considerable sympathy for lenders involved and we have been considering what practical help we may be able to provide. We have made contact with an insolvency practitioner that may be prepared to act on behalf of any individual lenders to give them a collective voice. While they would not be the IP of course, since one has already been appointed, they are familiar with the P2P set up as they have acted for us before and they are an experienced administrator themselves. We have sent them some information and they are currently reviewing this to assess whether they can assist. In the meantime, if any lenders are interested in this type of solution, please let me know. Kind regards, Ed Sounds useful. Maybe they can represent a Creditor's Commitee. stevefindlay are BondMason interested in getting involved? We've already informed the Administrator of our willingness to assist with the process and provide data from our detailed records, as may be of use. This includes acting as a liaison for other creditors. We will wait to hear if and how they would like us to assist.
|
|
huxs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300 
Likes: 218
|
Post by huxs on Jun 13, 2018 11:08:18 GMT
If RR were so on top of the financials how come the figures were all wrong in their report? At that point it became apparent to many lenders that there seemed to be funds missing and/or wrongly allocated, and/or wrongly accounted for. I lost all faith in RR at that point. Subsequently these concerns about RR's understanding of the finances have been confirmed. You will need to expand on what you believe was "all wrong" in their published report but just for clarity here is what they said;
"As of 23rd March 2018 the Group has loans outstanding of £15,624,628 which is secured against properties in the value of £23,552,400, of which each loan has a fixed charge in the name of Trustee against the relevant property. A schedule of the properties can be supplied on request. The Group loaned monies against other assets as well as property including jewellery, vehicles antiques and artwork. At the date of the Administration loans have been provided amounting to £1,678,071 secured against assets valued at £2,478,336. These assets are held by the Administrator in an independently owned safety deposit box, should the loans not be repaid in accordance with the loan agreements, the assets will be sold to enable the loans to be repaid. In the client account there is a balance of £395,404, which principally relates to 777 individuals who have deposited money amounting to £370,553, the business account held £376,113. 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."
In the subsequent court proceedings it was revealed £390k was withdrawn from the cash accounts, this may well have been "unauthorised" & will need to be followed up & I in no way condone or belittle it's importance but against the size of the loanbook £17.5m it is relative peanuts & in such a situation other accounting errors/oversights/mistakes maybe found but overall the picture looked pretty complete & as such I still fail to see where your total loss of faith comes from?
Surely if RR had this data including knowing that 777 individuals had cash deposited and 1132 where in the loans (of which I am in both of these camps) then BDO must also have access to the same data even if they received this via RR ?? I simply can't understand how BDO have not secured this information. They obviously have a list of all investor's as they have emailed us all and this information wouldn't be held in the company bank accounts so how did they get this if ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Jun 13, 2018 11:18:53 GMT
fully agree; but lets wait until they come back with the next communique. What I think would be helpful is a new "board" for investors only so BDO (or anyone else) cant monitor. Not sure how you prove you are an investor though There would seem to be a clear logic to having a forum where all interested Collateral investors could discuss any joint action away from public gaze. The obstacles that exist are fairly evident but presumably could be overcome with some initiative. For reasons that do not concern me, there are currently two active Forums both with knowledgeable members that have an interest, the simple solution is a 'purpose specific forum' that welcomes members from both. For some reason 'Switzerland' strikes me as a good name. Proving that you are an investor may be more difficult. Arguably a core could be established from posting history then work on a solution. I have other concerns, as I am sure would others. Presumably at this time establishing that it is a common wish is the first step? I know cross forum information is free flowing, so maybe interest on the other could be gauged.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 13, 2018 11:19:54 GMT
This is news to me. Is this another unsecured creditor for unpaid rent? I wonder whether this is in fact Bridge Lending Limited, which has a registered address in Blackpool and whose director is A Currie, and an ex-director, as of 5 March (interesting timeing!) is P Currie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Jun 13, 2018 11:21:53 GMT
You will need to expand on what you believe was "all wrong" in their published report but just for clarity here is what they said;
"As of 23rd March 2018 the Group has loans outstanding of £15,624,628 which is secured against properties in the value of £23,552,400, of which each loan has a fixed charge in the name of Trustee against the relevant property. A schedule of the properties can be supplied on request. The Group loaned monies against other assets as well as property including jewellery, vehicles antiques and artwork. At the date of the Administration loans have been provided amounting to £1,678,071 secured against assets valued at £2,478,336. These assets are held by the Administrator in an independently owned safety deposit box, should the loans not be repaid in accordance with the loan agreements, the assets will be sold to enable the loans to be repaid. In the client account there is a balance of £395,404, which principally relates to 777 individuals who have deposited money amounting to £370,553, the business account held £376,113. 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."
In the subsequent court proceedings it was revealed £390k was withdrawn from the cash accounts, this may well have been "unauthorised" & will need to be followed up & I in no way condone or belittle it's importance but against the size of the loanbook £17.5m it is relative peanuts & in such a situation other accounting errors/oversights/mistakes maybe found but overall the picture looked pretty complete & as such I still fail to see where your total loss of faith comes from?
Surely if RR had this data including knowing that 777 individuals had cash deposited and 1132 where in the loans (of which I am in both of these camps) then BDO must also have access to the same data even if they received this via RR ?? I simply can't understand how BDO have not secured this information. They obviously have a list of all investor's as they have emailed us all and this information wouldn't be held in the company bank accounts so how did they get this if ?
Could be incompetence (but I believe they must have at least some decent people) or perhaps wilful corporate ignorance. Why because they saw "the business account held £376,113" which would be eligible to pay their fees & thought how can we increase that pot? Looking at the "investments amount to £17,538,817" pot must have been very tempting but this would technically be client money & a half decent lawyer could argue that it should be ring fenced & protected for the benefit of lenders. The answer is to get your own lawyer to deem all lenders as creditors & hey presto suddenly it becomes an "all you can claim buffet" for BDO & their friends to draw upon; which is a much more appealing offering.
BDO will not find information if they are not looking for it or worse still, deliberately ignoring it because it suits their own interests to do so & the FCA are hardly going to step in to "protect lenders" as their incompetence & inaction is all over this whole mess & it was the FCA who forced BDO onto lenders in the first instance.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467 
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Jun 13, 2018 11:23:02 GMT
maybe RR could provide 'proof' of investor/mug status for the Swiss spv
and the fans of RR and the currie crooks could moderate ?
|
|
jontyab
Member of DD Central
Posts: 117
Likes: 79
|
Post by jontyab on Jun 13, 2018 11:31:38 GMT
Proving that you are an investor may be more difficult. Arguably a core could b e established from posting history then work on a solution. Any signed email (a loan update or a loan part purchase for example) from collateral is verifiable proof enough if you wanted a fairly undeniable method (would just be a case of forwarding to a forum admin to verify the signature), particularly if the email address in question matches the forum login. Although that requires the lenders' willingness to share the email in the first place. EDIT: I guess maybe not anymore now that someone else owns the domain and could sign whatever they like with whatever keys they like 
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 13, 2018 12:07:37 GMT
If RR were so on top of the financials how come the figures were all wrong in their report? At that point it became apparent to many lenders that there seemed to be funds missing and/or wrongly allocated, and/or wrongly accounted for. I lost all faith in RR at that point. Subsequently these concerns about RR's understanding of the finances have been confirmed. You will need to expand on what you believe was "all wrong" in their published report but just for clarity here is what they said;
"As of 23rd March 2018 the Group has loans outstanding of £15,624,628 which is secured against properties in the value of £23,552,400, of which each loan has a fixed charge in the name of Trustee against the relevant property. A schedule of the properties can be supplied on request. The Group loaned monies against other assets as well as property including jewellery, vehicles antiques and artwork. At the date of the Administration loans have been provided amounting to £1,678,071 secured against assets valued at £2,478,336. These assets are held by the Administrator in an independently owned safety deposit box, should the loans not be repaid in accordance with the loan agreements, the assets will be sold to enable the loans to be repaid. In the client account there is a balance of £395,404, which principally relates to 777 individuals who have deposited money amounting to £370,553, the business account held £376,113. 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."
In the subsequent court proceedings it was revealed £390k was withdrawn from the cash accounts, this may well have been "unauthorised" & will need to be followed up & I in no way condone or belittle it's importance but against the size of the loanbook £17.5m it is relative peanuts & in such a situation other accounting errors/oversights/mistakes maybe found but overall the picture looked pretty complete & as such I still fail to see where your total loss of faith comes from?
I believe a lot of the figures given by RR and quoted above were disputed by lenders who keep better records than me. But only £390k missing and other errors/oversights and mistakes, a mere bagatelle? I see it as incompetence, and now we know all the server data and back ups have been 'decommissioned' either before or on RR's watch, only external transactions exist, so all interest is unaccountable at present. Probably why interest wasn't mentioned in the quote above. Put it this way I will not be hiring RR to sort out my personal or business finances any time soon.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 13, 2018 12:17:39 GMT
You will need to expand on what you believe was "all wrong" in their published report but just for clarity here is what they said;
"As of 23rd March 2018 the Group has loans outstanding of £15,624,628 which is secured against properties in the value of £23,552,400, of which each loan has a fixed charge in the name of Trustee against the relevant property. A schedule of the properties can be supplied on request. The Group loaned monies against other assets as well as property including jewellery, vehicles antiques and artwork. At the date of the Administration loans have been provided amounting to £1,678,071 secured against assets valued at £2,478,336. These assets are held by the Administrator in an independently owned safety deposit box, should the loans not be repaid in accordance with the loan agreements, the assets will be sold to enable the loans to be repaid. In the client account there is a balance of £395,404, which principally relates to 777 individuals who have deposited money amounting to £370,553, the business account held £376,113. 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."
In the subsequent court proceedings it was revealed £390k was withdrawn from the cash accounts, this may well have been "unauthorised" & will need to be followed up & I in no way condone or belittle it's importance but against the size of the loanbook £17.5m it is relative peanuts & in such a situation other accounting errors/oversights/mistakes maybe found but overall the picture looked pretty complete & as such I still fail to see where your total loss of faith comes from?
I believe a lot of the figures given by RR and quoted above were disputed by lenders who keep better records than me. But only £390k missing and other errors/oversights and mistakes, a mere bagatelle? I see it as incompetence, and now we know all the server data and back ups have been 'decommissioned' either before or on RR's watch, only external transactions exist, so all interest is unaccountable at present. Probably why interest wasn't mentioned in the quote above. Put it this way I will not be hiring RR to sort out my personal or business finances any time soon. How do we know the data went missing on or before RR ‘watch’ ? Sorry if I’ve missed something...just to add when do you perceive their watch ending ...in my view it was certainly well before the court case Ps i’m not one of their fans either
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 13, 2018 12:23:51 GMT
BDO say prior to their appointment, RR were in charge and were trying to continue to be in charge up to the date of the court case and should have secured all the data (prior to that), if they ever actually had it.
Edit: I would say they should have secured all the data prior to their report, since an analysis of the company finances was the basis of the report.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 13, 2018 12:28:46 GMT
BDO say prior to their appointment, RR were in charge and were trying to continue to be in charge up to the date of the court case and should have secured all the data (prior to that), if they ever actually had it. I think in charge is questionable from both sides..just an opinion Edit I’m not surprised BDO said that it excuses then from all responsibility..but as soon as RR’s appointment was challenged it left everything in limbo and with no one in charge imho
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 740
Likes: 862
|
Post by 11025 on Jun 13, 2018 12:32:13 GMT
BDO say prior to their appointment, RR were in charge and were trying to continue to be in charge up to the date of the court case and should have secured all the data (prior to that), if they ever actually had it. Edit: I would say they should have secured all the data prior to their report, since an analysis of the company finances was the basis of the report. and you would hope BDO have been liaising with them over this as an urgent matter
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Jun 13, 2018 12:43:41 GMT
maybe RR could provide 'proof' of investor/mug status for the Swiss spv and the fans of RR and the currie crooks could moderate ? At some point fairly soon hopefully, people will realise we 'are where we are' and stop arguing about where we might have been in a parallel universe.
|
|
