Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,571
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 2, 2022 20:59:56 GMT
The court was told that 25% of any proceeds would go to FS. The remaining 75% would go to the four individuals who had been assigned the litigation.
Of that 25% due to FS, some 38% of that amount will be returned to the same four individuals due to their status as investors in the underlying loans.
The return to the four individuals is therefore 75 + (38% of 25) = 84.5%.
Exactly how much will be returned will become apparent when the court decides how the monies should be taken from the pension fund.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,875
Likes: 11,098
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 2, 2022 21:09:46 GMT
Wasn't the agreement 70:30 split in our favour? For the four individuals to be keeping 75%, they must have held just over 64% of the loans. (30+0.643*70=75). Crikey, that's a lot, no wonder they were upset.
It was 70:30 but I didn't realize the litigation was bought by lenders. Good result for them and a great relief, I was pissed off losing £800. Pity axiafunder were more on the ball! I make it they held roughly 45% of the loan assuming the whole loan was recovered (i.e. 75% of 100k loan = 30k for litigation + 45k investment) which it won't be. You need to know the actual recovery percentage to be more accurate, surely.
It'll be another 2 years before the pension company runs out of excuses not to pay it.
Are you sure its not been confused with the other MC loans where the litigation rights were sold which were 70:30? Not in art loans so havent seen if there have been any updates stating the split.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Mar 2, 2022 21:21:44 GMT
The court was told that 25% of any proceeds would go to FS. The remaining 75% would go to the four individuals who had been assigned the litigation.
Of that 25% due to FS, some 38% of that amount will be returned to the same four individuals due to their status as investors in the underlying loans.
The return to the four individuals is therefore 75 + (38% of 25) = 84.5%.
Exactly how much will be returned will become apparent when the court decides how the monies should be taken from the pension fund.
Thanks for the clarification. 70/30 is the other on-going litigation. 25% of pension fund return/original loan amount it is. We're even getting hardballed by other lenders, be good when FS is no longer. That'll be 4 years almost of fighting that fraudster, I don't begrudge them it although maybe they need some investment advice !
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 3, 2022 8:15:29 GMT
I am in 7 of these loans so a good result all things considering - however as mentioned getting a judgement and getting the readies are 2 different things - not sure where the money for the legal fees is coming from and how much we will get but hopefully more than I was expecting!
If these 4 lenders can get this recovery then I wonder why FS could not have done it - or maybe they did not want to or weren't even interested?
Unless my maths are wrong these 4 investors had an ernomous sum invested.
As already stated why the hell weren't we told these loans had the same borrower...
I presume no uopdate from CG yet?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Mar 3, 2022 8:26:04 GMT
I am in 7 of these loans so a good result all things considering - however as mentioned getting a judgement and getting the readies are 2 different things - not sure where the money for the legal fees is coming from and how much we will get but hopefully more than I was expecting! If these 4 lenders can get this recovery then I wonder why FS could not have done it - or maybe they did not want to or weren't even interested? As already stated why the hell weren't we told these loans had the same borrower... I presume no uopdate from CG yet? Legal fees ultimately will come from the 4 lenders, who took on all risks of the litigation. FS-CG wont do it, as they wont (not allowed) to take on the risk. Why would NH/RL tell us the loans had the same borrower? That was not in their interest, or maybe hey did not know?? Anything is possible More of a question, why the FCA did not discover this during their authorisation process and subsequent change of control process, SUP 1A.3.4.1 and 1A.3.4.2 “p re-emptive identification of harm through review and assessments of firms portfolios".
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 3, 2022 8:58:20 GMT
Legal fees ultimately will come from the 4 lenders, who took on all risks of the litigation. Well that is going to be a pretty penny! To them I say well done chaps and chappesses - this defendant may possibly now be regretting his actions and not protecting our money...
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Mar 3, 2022 10:20:05 GMT
I am confused...as usual. Could someone clarify which 'Art Loans' these are first before I say anything else I was in the Picasso, Auerbach, Lowry & Chagall Thanks
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Mar 3, 2022 10:23:39 GMT
I am confused...as usual. Could someone clarify which 'Art Loans' these are first before I say anything else I was in the Picasso, Auerbach, Lowry & Chagall Thanks Not following thread at the moment but that is the four I'm in.
There were another two/three loans called art work and fine art , don't know if they are still unredeemed.
2726372962 Art Work - 2nd charge - Renewal 1000 0.12 19/07/2019 Loan Active - 1437953422 Art Work - Renewal 2500 0.12 19/07/2019 Loan Active - 3020915407 Fine Art - Renewal 494700 0.13 06/02/2017 Loan Active 08/02/2019
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,875
Likes: 11,098
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 3, 2022 10:51:06 GMT
AIUI there was also a Collection of Vases. I think there are 7 different items/collections of art but some have multiple loans/tranches. List here p2pindependentforum.com/post/356031
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Mar 3, 2022 11:02:40 GMT
AIUI there was also a Collection of Vases. I think there are 7 different items/collections of art but some have multiple loans/tranches. List here p2pindependentforum.com/post/356031
had a lucky escape then, 2 more I could have invested in. Wouldn't have invested in vases ! A mission to screw as many people as possible for as much as possible.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,571
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 4, 2022 9:30:46 GMT
To confirm the affected loans:
Facility 1 – Impressionist Paintings
Ref: 1447116747 & 8850220627 & 8859773920
Date Start: 2/11/16
Loan Size: £255,000
Fee: £5000
“A 6 month loan secured on a collection of 5 French-impressionist paintings.”
Facility 2 – Fine Art
Ref: 3791904621 & 3020915407
Date Start: 2/12/16
Loan Size: £494,700
Fee: £9,700
“A 6 month loan secured on a collection of 4 paintings.”
“24/08/2017
“In response to some enquiries concerning this loan, an agent of the borrower approached another peer-to-peer platform with a view to refinancing the painting. The deal did not proceed. The painting remained in storage at Constantines at all times.”
Facility 3 – Collection of Vases
Ref: 1298763968 & 1179005019
Date Start: 2/12/16
Loan Size: £86,700
Fee: £1,700
“A 6 month loan secured on a rare collection of antique vases.”
Facility 4 – Auerbach
Ref: 1311869508 & 2442801065
Date Start: 23/12/16
Loan Size: £155,000
Fee: £5,000
“A 6 month loan secured on a painting by Auerbach”
Facility 5 – Picasso Tranche 1
Ref: 2580819685 & 1763618002
Date Start: 16/1/17
Loan Size: £206,000
Fee: £6,000
“The first tranche of a facility loan of £618,000 secured against an extremely rare Pablo Picasso etching”
Facility 6 – Picasso Tranche 2
Ref: 1018164427 & 2909973008
Date Start: 23/1/17
Loan Size: £206,000
Fee: £6,000
“The second tranche of a facility loan of £618,000 secured against an extremely rare Pablo Picasso etching.”
Facility 7 – Picasso Tranche 3
Ref: 2201653534 & 1944450730
Date Start: 3/2/17
Loan Size: £206,000
Fee: £6,000
“The third tranche of a facility loan of £618,000 secured against an extremely rare Pablo Picasso etching.”
Facility 8 – Marc Chagall
Ref: 5073631341
Date Start: 9/6/17
Loan Size: £463,500
Fee: £13,500
“A 6 month loan secured against La Revolution - Marc Chagall”
Facility 9 – Lowry
Ref: 1614460897
Date Start: 26/7/17
Loan Size: £250,000
Fee: £7,500
“A loan secured on a painting by LS Lowry. The painting is held at Constantines, London.”
Terms Facilities 1-8 had the following terms:
Interest 13% PA
Admin Fee 0.72% per month
Default Fee: 0.5% per month
Facility 9:
Interest 12%
Admin Fee: 0.8%
No Default Fee
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,571
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 7, 2022 13:01:04 GMT
"Funding InSecure - The full story of the doomed Art loans"I've written a long article explaining the entire history of the doomed artwork loans including the result from todays judgment hand down and what return the lenders can expect - and why. I'm giving anyone who donates to the 'Cheese Fund' immediate access to this article when it's published on Wednesday. The article will be posted on the open web in four-weeks-time for all to read. All proceeds will be used to support crowd-funded journalism of the P2P sector. mouseinthecourtroom.wordpress.com/cheese-fund/
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 7, 2022 14:29:14 GMT
great stuff mousey - have sent you a nibble as just can't wait
It strikes me that if it were not for these 4 chaps who sued this muppet he may just have got away with this - hopfully he hasn't as this strikes me as a despicable thing that he did - not that FS were blameles - so much for UK justice - it is money that is talking here...
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Mar 7, 2022 15:26:53 GMT
Unfortunately, based on what the initial calculations have provisionally projected from any recoveries, I shall have to wait until the 'free edition' is published. My last hope of recovering even a fraction of the 'investments' I made in Funding Secure overall, have now disappeared with this judgement. I was certainly correct about my Ides of March comment on FB. Little did I realise it would be me that should have heeded the warning. And on my birthday too...oh the irony.
In late January last year, I responded to a post on the Art Loan thread, regarding the 30/70% allocation, suggesting that the OP had got the %ages the wrong way round, based on my assumption that 30% would go to the investors and 70% to the litigants, less their legal costs. The post only attracted one response, suggesting that in fact I'd got it the wrong way round and that the OP was correct.
So where did this 30/70 split come from ? All incidental of course, as it seems that the litigants will get 84.5%
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 7, 2022 16:53:44 GMT
Agree with what you say Rogerthat but i think these 4 are paying for this legal action and I hate to think what that will cost so they took a big risk
Given it is their risk then I don't think their % is too bad would I have done it for less probably not...
Of course we should never have been in this position and IMHO FS should be behind bars and have all their private and personal assets seized but what justice have we in the UK
I just hope this pension is not "safeguarded" and we can actually get at it!
Wish I have never heard of FS as for the FCA - pathetic!
|
|