mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Mar 30, 2018 18:21:24 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? The only people that should have received the report are creditors and the directors and obviously the administrators. As as there are no unsecured creditors, as per the report, very few copies should exist. I guess that financialthing.com downloaded the copy from here to drive more clicks to his website. Its clearly a "leak", and all leaks have a motive, you just need to guess what that is, which seems obviously to create a swell of opinion against the FCA and in favour of retaining the current administrators (who have both financial and professional incentives to retain the business). The information we have is insufficient to make a determination, I put my trust the the courts to decide, which may, or may not be a good thing, but we simply do not have all the facts.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875 
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 30, 2018 18:24:29 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. I presume stub8535 was sent it by a Director / employee of COL, given his past visits and communication with them. Once his copy was made available via the DD Central board, anyone else with access to DD Central could download it, save a copy and make it available via their own website. (crossed with mary)
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 18:25:25 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? I would suggest you need to consult a lawyer regarding your own situation if you are concerned the Administrator is not treating your claim correctly it certainly does not appear he is in the Statement of Affairs. michaelc you should do the same.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Mar 30, 2018 18:43:35 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. I found the report to be very clearly written. It wa readable, well laid out and easy to understand. I only had to read it once. I know it contained a lot of 'spin' but of course it did.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 30, 2018 18:50:59 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? I would suggest you need to consult a lawyer regarding your own situation if you are concerned the Administrator is not treating your claim correctly it certainly does not appear he is in the Statement of Affairs. michaelc you should do the same. Am I missing something here ....which bit in the statement of affairs suggests that he is not treating no ‘us’ fairly
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 18:51:28 GMT
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. I found the report to be very clearly written. It wa readable, well laid out and easy to understand. I only had to read it once. I know it contained a lot of 'spin' but of course it did. But the financial information was garbage. Are you saying that nice grammar and language is more important to you than financial accuracy?
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 30, 2018 18:58:33 GMT
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? Doesn’t that depend on what happens....the report for example talks about an offer for the whole of the loan book...if that route materialises then your scenario doesn’t happen
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 30, 2018 18:59:14 GMT
I found the report to be very clearly written. It wa readable, well laid out and easy to understand. I only had to read it once. I know it contained a lot of 'spin' but of course it did. But the financial information was garbage. Are you saying that nice grammar and language is more important to you than financial accuracy? Bit sarcastic!
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Mar 30, 2018 19:01:09 GMT
To dual investor,
How can you say the financial information was garbage. I assume that you do not have access to the Collateral bank accounts and financial records and all the rest of it so I don't really understand how you can say that the figures in the report were a load of rubbish.
I have to say that after I read the report nothing jumped out of the page at me as being blatantly wrong.
Dual investor you do seem very keen that this matter is passed to some London outfit who charge higher fees. If I was a cynic I might suggest that you might work for such a firm and were eyeing up the possibility of a nice big job coming your way.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 19:02:47 GMT
I would suggest you need to consult a lawyer regarding your own situation if you are concerned the Administrator is not treating your claim correctly it certainly does not appear he is in the Statement of Affairs. michaelc you should do the same. Am I missing something here ....which bit in the statement of affairs suggests that he is not treating no ‘us’ fairly He says in the Statement of Affairs you are secured creditors secured on property developments and chattels and he hasn't included the client's account. Whereas the company has no physical property whatsoever only loans. Unless he has determined otherwise those loans are between the borrower and lender therefore you are not a secured lender of the company and he has failed to include £390,000,collectively, of your money. All of the foregoing is explicitly contrary to the contents of this "excellent report" GeorgeT ''s words not mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 19:07:20 GMT
To dual investor, How can you say the financial information was garbage. I assume that you do not have access to the Collateral bank accounts and financial records and all the rest of it so I don't really understand how you can say that the figures in the report were a load of rubbish. I have to say that after I read the report nothing jumped out of the page at me as being blatantly wrong. Dual investor you do seem very keen that this matter is passed to some London outfit who charge higher fees. If I was a cynic I might suggest that you might work for such a firm and were eyeing up the possibility of a nice big job coming your way. Read my original reply to an earlier post of yours and the one I have just written to averageguy. One does not have to see the company's books and records to know that the Statement of Affairs is contrary to the report and garbage. PS £48k to a small town Lancashire outfit for a few days work seems nice work to me if you can get it. For the record I do not work or have any business or professional relationship with the FCA proposed Administrators
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 30, 2018 19:07:58 GMT
Am I missing something here ....which bit in the statement of affairs suggests that he is not treating no ‘us’ fairly He says in the Statement of Affairs you are secured creditors secured on property developments and chattels and he hasn't included the client's account. Whereas the company has no physical property whatsoever only loans. Unless he has determined otherwise those loans are between the borrower and lender therefore you are not a secured lender of the company and he has failed to include £390,000,collectively, of your money. All of the foregoing is explicitly contrary to the contents of this "excellent report" GeorgeT ''s words not mine. Thank you for your reply. takes two steps back......I’ve no desire to stir the pot...... although I would say one further thing re the circulation of the report...if we were supposed to see it , it would be much easier to question its voracity rather than to blindly accept it or question its accuracy
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 19:17:00 GMT
He says in the Statement of Affairs you are secured creditors secured on property developments and chattels and he hasn't included the client's account. Whereas the company has no physical property whatsoever only loans. Unless he has determined otherwise those loans are between the borrower and lender therefore you are not a secured lender of the company and he has failed to include £390,000,collectively, of your money. All of the foregoing is explicitly contrary to the contents of this "excellent report" GeorgeT ''s words not mine. Thank you for your reply. takes two steps back......I’ve no desire to stir the pot...... although I would say one further thing re the circulation of the report...if we were supposed to see it , it would be much easier to question its voracity rather than to blindly accept it or question its accuracy I don't believe anyone seriously doubts its authenticity or veracity, I am only pointing out the internal contradictions.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 19:19:59 GMT
Am I missing something here ....which bit in the statement of affairs suggests that he is not treating no ‘us’ fairly He says in the Statement of Affairs you are secured creditors secured on property developments and chattels and he hasn't included the client's account. Whereas the company has no physical property whatsoever only loans. Unless he has determined otherwise those loans are between the borrower and lender therefore you are not a secured lender of the company and he has failed to include £390,000,collectively, of your money. All of the foregoing is explicitly contrary to the contents of this "excellent report" GeorgeT ''s words not mine. I'm reserving judgement on the best way to present the SOA, but it appears to include Collateral Security Trustees Limited, which holds charges over those assets and a corresponding liability to the investors, so I was not surprised to see them on the SOA. Presumably the client account is being treated as completely separate as those funds are owned directly by investors, unlike the loan security which is owned indirectly. Perhaps Collateral Security Trustees Limited should have been left out of the SOA, but it is rather reassuring to see that some reconciliation has taken place.
|
|
dh1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 409
Likes: 463
|
Post by dh1 on Mar 30, 2018 19:28:44 GMT
|
|
