mickj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 435 
Likes: 191
|
Post by mickj on Mar 8, 2018 9:53:21 GMT
I expect you will have to up your postcount yorky Yes, so will I like posting garbage like this! Is there a case to be made to allow verified Collateral lenders access to DD Central without a 50 postcount, exceptional circumstances or something. Admin ?
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 8, 2018 10:03:49 GMT
There is no way to verify Coll lenders as such, unless Coll or the administrators want to do so .. I suspect that would be low on their priority list.
|
|
mickj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 435
Likes: 191
|
Post by mickj on Mar 8, 2018 10:09:11 GMT
There is no way to verify Coll lenders as such, unless Coll or the administrators want to do so .. I suspect that would be low on their priority list. yep of course, what was I thinking
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 349
Likes: 438
|
Post by nyneil on Mar 8, 2018 10:37:08 GMT
I see that ABL have contacted the administrators to see 'if there's anything they can do to help'
Sounds promising to me.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 8, 2018 11:16:01 GMT
I see that ABL have contacted the administrators to see 'if there's anything they can do to help' Sounds promising to me. Which thread is that? Or where did you see this? You mind posting the links to the page you saw that? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by angrykittens on Mar 8, 2018 11:33:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 8, 2018 11:48:12 GMT
A question was raised on a DD Central thread as to whether the publication and approval of the administrators proposals will really take as long as the 8-10 weeks mentioned multiple times in posts on the forum. I'm repeating the answer I gave here:
The statutory requirement is for a meeting of creditors to be held within ten weeks of the administrators appointment (see para 56.1.83 on link below) the main purpose of which is to approve the administrators proposals, and creditors have to be given 14 days notice of the meeting. Hence the proposals document has to be issued to creditors within 8 weeks, unless the period is to be extended. See para 56.1.86 and the subsequent few for details of the creditors meeting, and paras 56.1.77 / .78 for details of the proposals document.
The paragraph numbers I've quoted relate to the following document detailing the statutory duties of an administrator
www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/technicalmanual/Ch49-60/Chapter%2056-1/Part%207/Part%207.htm
This is likely to be one of the more complex administrations these administrators will have undertaken, and as such I'd be surprised if we see the administrators proposals document much before the 8 week mark (also factor in Easter, both the 2 Bank Holidays, and various key individuals taking leave during the school holidays).A subsequent very good question was raised:
What happens to lenders in this situation? Because we are clearly not creditors to Collateral. Instead we are creditors to loans hosted (?) by Collateral.
What are the administrators statutory obligations to lenders who aren't creditors? |
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Mar 8, 2018 12:10:34 GMT
Apologies if this has already been discussed - but I can't see mention of it in the previous pages.
I wonder if anyone can tell me whether they are aware of Collateral's obligations (if any) with regard to development projects. Perhaps we never saw the relevant docs/weren't told, but I wonder if the relevant loan agreements contained any obligation that, provided certain criteria were fulfilled, Collateral was obliged to provide further development tranches to borrowers. It seems possible to me that a borrower would want such comfort in a loan agreement, for fear that development funding might be pulled, endangering the project. On the other hand, a p2p platform can never be certain it will be able to raise funds from lenders - so perhaps there would be a get-out clause.
If there are any such obligations, this would of course be highly relevant as we understand from the administrator that no further funding will be provided (and, obviously, there wouldn't be any source for the funding as we can't get on the website to provide it). I suppose the borrowers would theoretically be able to seek damages from Collateral for breach of contract, in such a case.
I know speculation isn't ideal at this point - but I thought this was something pretty relevant and concrete, if anyone is aware of how this works generally in p2p/how it has worked at Collateral? I'm a lawyer by training, so find it hard to resist wondering about these things...
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 8, 2018 12:17:18 GMT
Apologies if this has already been discussed - but I can't see mention of it in the previous pages. I wonder if anyone can tell me whether they are aware of Collateral's obligations (if any) with regard to development projects. Perhaps we never saw the relevant docs/weren't told, but I wonder if the relevant loan agreements contained any obligation that, provided certain criteria were fulfilled, Collateral was obliged to provide further development tranches to borrowers. It seems possible to me that a borrower would want such comfort in a loan agreement, for fear that development funding might be pulled, endangering the project. On the other hand, a p2p platform can never be certain it will be able to raise funds from lenders - so perhaps there would be a get-out clause. If there are any such obligations, this would of course be highly relevant as we understand from the administrator that no further funding will be provided (and, obviously, there wouldn't be any source for the funding as we can't get on the website to provide it). I suppose the borrowers would theoretically be able to seek damages from Collateral for breach of contract, in such a case. I know speculation isn't ideal at this point - but I thought this was something pretty relevant and concrete, if anyone is aware of how this works generally in p2p/how it has worked at Collateral? I'm a lawyer by training, so find it hard to resist wondering about these things... My understanding is that there's no obligation on behalf of the platform to provide all funding for ongoing developments (although certainly it's a hope/expectation from the borrower). Even before they went into administration, Collateral were seriously struggling to find sufficient funding to complete Bolton for example, and they made it clear to lenders in an email that further progress on the development hinged on funding being provided. Similarly, MT are now struggling to fill the second tranche of a large facility and have advised lenders they will have no choice but to advise the borrower to seek finance elsewhere should it not be filled. As P2P is effectively the bottom rung of the ladder, the only alternative that I'm aware of is to re-finance to another platform -but who, in this climate? It's rather concerning all in all, as far as I can see. Very happy to be corrected with a more sunshine-y scenario 
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 8, 2018 12:22:59 GMT
chris1200 - see this recent post by MoneyThing for the implications for their business, and in that context consider the update that has just gone up on their Everton loan(s) if you are a lender there. AC offer facility loans, and the assumption is they believe they have adequate headroom and liquidity in QAA/30DAA to cover the tranche calls as they occur. They may also still have access to their underwriting panel for the largest loans. Similiarly Lendy may have agreements with underwriters to enable them to offer the mega development loans they do (equally they may not, and the stuation would be as MT describe). The apparent slow uptake of development tranches at COL would indicate they probably didn't have agreements with underwritiers to cover the Bolton loan to completion. This doesn't answer your question, as I've no idea how the loan agreement with the borrower was structured at COL.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 8, 2018 12:29:19 GMT
My understanding is that there's no obligation on behalf of the platform to provide all funding for ongoing developments (although certainly it's a hope/expectation from the borrower). Even before they went into administration, Collateral were seriously struggling to find sufficient funding to complete Bolton for example, and they made it clear to lenders in an email that further progress on the development hinged on funding being provided. Similarly, MT are now struggling to fill the second tranche of a large facility and have advised lenders they will have no choice but to advise the borrower to seek finance elsewhere should it not be filled. As P2P is effectively the bottom rung of the ladder, the only alternative that I'm aware of is to re-finance to another platform -but who, in this climate? It's rather concerning all in all, as far as I can see. Very happy to be corrected with a more sunshine-y scenario Thank you - your scenario is at least sunshine-y in that hopefully Collateral won't be sued! My hope was that p2p platforms would have lawyers decent enough to make sure they weren't bound to provide all development tranches, but you never know reading some of the stuff that's apparently gone on...! Well, I'll defer to MrC's take above, in that I also am not party to the borrower agreements. I would certainly hope Collateral can't be sued as it would then seem a rather reckless endeavour for them to have ever set out upon. I guess we'll have to see what transpires.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 8, 2018 12:34:03 GMT
Similarly, MT are now struggling to fill the second tranche of a large facility and have advised lenders they will have no choice but to advise the borrower to seek finance elsewhere should it not be filled. Ly just had a tranche of a large dev loan cut short from 500k+ to just below 200k. Seems p2p is at its low point. Or whether COL had a ripple effect on the sector.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 8, 2018 12:37:50 GMT
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Mar 8, 2018 13:00:37 GMT
I expect you will have to up your postcount yorky Yes, so will I like posting garbage like this! Well I'd be a bit careful putting the rubbish out - it has been known for members to have their count summarily reduced  . There's a further check at the gate as well. Are you listening locutus or am I on your block list already
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Mar 8, 2018 13:29:46 GMT
|
|
. There's a further check at the gate as well. Are you listening 