|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 16:43:06 GMT
how are you coming up with the 48K being the total admin cost as it's repeatedly referred to as the 'pre-appointment cost' (which has 'tacit' agreement apparently) please can you point out in the report where it states this is the total cost ? The administrator was appointed by Col voluntarily, in a very responsible move IMO, to wind up their affairs in a sensible, managed way so a fee was agreed before the appointment was confirmed so it could be pre paid by Col before administration was commenced (along with £40k to cover staff salaries so they could assist & speed up the process). This £88k came for Col's own funds & doesn't affect any return to lenders, there will be an allowance for unexpected costs incurred, like court costs, but the substantial administration costa are effectively already paid, unless the FCA win at court & impose their approved London based firm & then costs will inevitably increase rapidly & could compromise the return to lenders. But you have still not stated where the report says it is full fee not the pre-administration fee that it explicitly says it is in paragraph 12.2
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 30, 2018 16:45:22 GMT
It is how pre packed administrations work it doesn't need to be explicit in the report
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666 
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 16:47:08 GMT
how are you coming up with the 48K being the total admin cost as it's repeatedly referred to as the 'pre-appointment cost' (which has 'tacit' agreement apparently) please can you point out in the report where it states this is the total cost ? The administrator was appointed by Col voluntarily, in a very responsible move IMO, to wind up their affairs in a sensible, managed way so a fee was agreed before the appointment was confirmed so it could be pre paid by Col before administration was commenced (along with £40k to cover staff salaries so they could assist & speed up the process). This £88k came for Col's own funds & doesn't affect any return to lenders, there will be an allowance for unexpected costs incurred, like court costs, but the substantial administration costa are effectively already paid, unless the FCA win at court & impose their approved London based firm & then costs will inevitably increase rapidly & could compromise the return to lenders. This information is not from the administrator's report and some of it appears to contradict what is stated in that report. So, please would you elaborate on the source of this information? If it is from a reliable source, it would seem to support the claims made by stub8535 , which have so far been unsubstantiated.
|
|
k6
Posts: 266
Likes: 161
|
Post by k6 on Mar 30, 2018 16:49:57 GMT
Is there a way to see this “report” , if one is not a member of DDcentral ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 30, 2018 16:51:11 GMT
The administrator was appointed by Col voluntarily, in a very responsible move IMO, to wind up their affairs in a sensible, managed way so a fee was agreed before the appointment was confirmed so it could be pre paid by Col before administration was commenced (along with £40k to cover staff salaries so they could assist & speed up the process). This £88k came for Col's own funds & doesn't affect any return to lenders, there will be an allowance for unexpected costs incurred, like court costs, but the substantial administration costa are effectively already paid, unless the FCA win at court & impose their approved London based firm & then costs will inevitably increase rapidly & could compromise the return to lenders. This information is not from the administrator's report and some of it appears to contradict what is stated in that report. So, please would you elaborate on the source of this information? If it is from a reliable source, it would seem to support the claims made by stub8535 , which have so far been unsubstantiated. I suggest you reread section 12.2 of the report I will not reproduce it here as I don't want to cross the mods but it is crystal clear IMHO.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 16:58:38 GMT
This information is not from the administrator's report and some of it appears to contradict what is stated in that report. So, please would you elaborate on the source of this information? If it is from a reliable source, it would seem to support the claims made by stub8535 , which have so far been unsubstantiated. I suggest you reread section 12.2 of the report I will not reproduce it here as I don't want to cross the mods but it is crystal clear IMHO. In that case I hope I can paraphrase. The report states explicitly that £48k was paid to RR to cover the pre-appointment costs of dealing with the group. Those costs are defined in section 12.1 of the report as fees charged and costs incurred before the administration. You are claiming that the £48k also covers fees and costs after the group was placed into administration. That is contrary to what is written in the report.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Mar 30, 2018 16:59:39 GMT
|
|
k6
Posts: 266
Likes: 161
|
Post by k6 on Mar 30, 2018 17:02:22 GMT
Thanks a lot. I do not participate much commenting Col. case but I do try to follow all comments. Although it seam like a full time job. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 17:04:25 GMT
It is how pre packed administrations work it doesn't need to be explicit in the report So despite you inviting me to read the "27 page report" and discouting my earlier comment as treating it as fake news you now say it doesn't have to be explicit in the report. What do you base that on and which post do you stand by?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 30, 2018 17:05:31 GMT
It is how pre packed administrations work it doesn't need to be explicit in the report This is not a pre-pack. Or if it was intended to be it doesn't seem to have worked. Edit found definition: 'Although administration and pre-pack administration are governed by the same best practice requirements, the pre-pack process differs in one key area – the sale of the business and any assets of the company is negotiated before the appointment of administrators and completes either immediately upon – or shortly following – the appointment. This differs from the standard process where administrators commence marketing of the business after their appointment.'
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 30, 2018 17:07:56 GMT
You seemed to assume that £48k was the total cost of the administration (and you still seem to), which I rebutted. It was the cost of them taking off their hats and coats and rolling up their sleeves and was paid. This was for the pre-administration, the administration bill to follow... We just disagree on this point £48k + any unexpected costs should be the final RR bill, obviously unless the FCA get their way at court & then all bets are off & the total cost will be far higher. Whoever runs down the loan book has a job for years until the final loan repays or is written off. This involves receiving payments, chasing late payments, probably taking over assets and disposing of them in the case of defaults etc. Development loans will be real problem. They will not be able to offer the next tranche loan and if the borrower cannot obtain alternative finance the part development will likely be a near total write off. All this for £48k?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Mar 30, 2018 17:51:08 GMT
Section 12.2 of the excellent report makes it very plain that the £48k thus far retained by RR is in respect of pre appointment fees and costs so clearly the fees associated with dealing with the longer term wind down will be in excess of that amount and come to quite a considerable amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 18:06:05 GMT
Section 12.2 of the excellent report makes it very plain that the £48k thus far retained by RR is in respect of pre appointment fees and costs so clearly the fees associated with dealing with the longer term wind down will be in excess of that amount and come to quite a considerable amount. On what basis do you call it excellent? I would have thought the included Statement of Affairs claiming that the company own properties and developments of £15million, chattel assets of £1.7 million states there are £15million secured creditors with a £236,000 deficit and fails to disclose £390,000 client's account (all material errors) falls far short of excellent.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Mar 30, 2018 18:12:01 GMT
What I don't understand is how Laurence (Financial Thing webmaster) and Stubs of this forum received copies of this important document when I didn't?
I am not a creditor in the literal sense - but then neither is Laurence or Stubs as far as I'm aware. We are all 'investors' and should all be treated equally in terms of communications from the Administrators.
When information like this is not received by everyone it can lead to panic in that there is an understandable concern that our own details may have been lost.
What was the criteria for getting this report? Was it in fact 'leaked' by the administrators (like a leak from 10 Downing St) and not officially sent to anyone?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,717
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 30, 2018 18:16:39 GMT
<Moved from wrong thread in DD to here>
Assuming it does turn out to be the case that col was never fca registered then doesn't that mean there can't have been a legal separation of cash and assets? Presumably the borrowers signed one loan agreement with col and we do know that col registered the legal charges in their name and held physical assets on behalf of lenders.
What I'm getting at, is it possible that col is now a company with a lot of assets on its balance sheet and that we will in fact be treated as (secured?) creditors of that company? That might explain why we are sometimes referred to as "creditors".
If that's the case, then perhaps that wouldn't be a bad place to be since at least we'd have an administrator supposedly with our interests at heart. Just being "lenders" and not creditors would presumably mean we'd need to organise amongst ourselves in order to pursue individual borrowers and claim related security.
|
|
