jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jun 29, 2018 15:46:17 GMT
Just as background in case it is useful. I am not invested in COL.
I have just been looking at the administrator fees that were agreed with the credit committee of an investment that I am involved with - not p2p, but of a similar size with circa 900 investors. In this case the administrator agreed to a relatively small fixed sum for fees, together with a percentage of any money recovered. Any expenses were paid outside this, along with third party costs. The lawyers where paid at cost for some of the work. For other work they worked on a contingent basis assuming they were successful in the recovery.
Am not saying this is possible in the case of COL or it is the right thing to do - it is just an example.
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144 
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Jun 29, 2018 16:11:30 GMT
COL's will left £48K fixed fee for Administration. This was paid to Refresh Recovery, and then taken back.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 29, 2018 16:59:18 GMT
Extracted from Appendix 3 The only loan we know to have refinanced is the Bromyard loan on FS. The loan was for £210,000 on Collateral and according to my records last updated on 25 Feb the loan had 87 days remaining, which would place the end date at 23 May 2018. The loan went live on FS on 13 Jun, so we can deduce it was repaid 21 days late. Interest of £2,174.76 equates to 18% interest rate for 21 days. Non-preferential lenders invested on terms of 12% interest. My guess is that borrowers were charged 18% (i.e. 1.5% per month) leaving the platform with 6% margin (from which they had to pay interest/cashback over and above 12% to preferential lenders). Edit: It would appear that in this instance no default interest rate was charged to the Bromyard borrower (not unreasonable given 21 days late is nothing for bridging/development loans, not an unreasonable tolerance period) nor any fees for repayment of the loan. Edit 2: interest/fees for the original term were paid upfront It occurred to me this afternoon that this means the contract between the borrower and the now-defunct platform appear to be valid and enforceable. I recall some previous commentary suggesting that if the contract were deemed invalid then the borrower would be liable for repayment of capital only. The VR prepared for FS for the Bromyard loan states the inspection took place on 22 March and the report was re-addressed on 2 May. It may be the case that the borrower wanted to refinance before or at the end of the Collateral contract but were prevented from doing so by the fact that BDO were not ready (perhaps they were awaiting legal advice). In which case BDO would not have been within their rights to charge default interest over and above the standard rate, which leaves open the possibility that default interest and/or penalties may be able to be enforced on delinquent borrowers. It goes without say that this is supposition.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 30, 2018 11:20:47 GMT
COL's will left £48K fixed fee for Administration. This was paid to Refresh Recovery, and then taken back. For RR’s pre-admin costs. BDO’s, inflated by preparing for the court hearing, were 36k on a time basis.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 30, 2018 11:32:50 GMT
Organisations love taking extracts from databases and putting the data into Excel so they can create pretty things with pivot table and graphs for meetings etc. I am surprised the owners of COL didn't do this for the lender/borrow split stored in the database. I would have thought they could lay their hands on a file or printout somewhere.... even if it was a little out of date.... I have worked with many digital startups and I will not believe the story the C. brothers don't have anything in their hands... People like these are mad at backups, multiple copies everywhere, so many that the contrary might be happening, i.e. the data is at risk for being in too many HD, servers, PCs which might be more vulnerable to attacks than the main one. So the only logical explanation to their refusal to give any data in is that they have something to hide (or that they hope will not emerge so easily). I agree. However, there was a period in which the running of the co was in the hands of a purported administrator. It may be during that period when only the data necessary for the planned form of liquidation was retained.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Jun 30, 2018 13:35:59 GMT
Extracted from Appendix 3 The only loan we know to have refinanced is the Bromyard loan on FS. The loan was for £210,000 on Collateral and according to my records last updated on 25 Feb the loan had 87 days remaining, which would place the end date at 23 May 2018. The loan went live on FS on 13 Jun, so we can deduce it was repaid 21 days late. Interest of £2,174.76 equates to 18% interest rate for 21 days. Non-preferential lenders invested on terms of 12% interest. My guess is that borrowers were charged 18% (i.e. 1.5% per month) leaving the platform with 6% margin (from which they had to pay interest/cashback over and above 12% to preferential lenders). Edit: It would appear that in this instance no default interest rate was charged to the Bromyard borrower (not unreasonable given 21 days late is nothing for bridging/development loans, not an unreasonable tolerance period) nor any fees for repayment of the loan. Edit 2: interest/fees for the original term were paid upfront It occurred to me this afternoon that this means the contract between the borrower and the now-defunct platform appear to be valid and enforceable. I recall some previous commentary suggesting that if the contract were deemed invalid then the borrower would be liable for repayment of capital only. .... It goes without say that this is supposition. More likely I suggest that the borrower just wanted to get on with the job, and didn't fancy chancing it and having himself up to the ears in lawyers for the next year or two, all for a few thousand. Or might even have felt a moral obligation.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jun 30, 2018 17:29:32 GMT
The legal costs for disputing the contract would probably be more than the interest cost for a proper exit .. more, once you had lost .. however I wonder how the borrower managed to get the existing charge 'discharged', so a new lender could get the required security to proceed. It suggests that someone, somewhere, is still capable of putting a loan into 'paid off' state, and banking the proceeds (one hopes)?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jun 30, 2018 21:12:40 GMT
Just as background in case it is useful. I am not invested in COL. I have just been looking at the administrator fees that were agreed with the credit committee of an investment that I am involved with - not p2p, but of a similar size with circa 900 investors. In this case the administrator agreed to a relatively small fixed sum for fees, together with a percentage of any money recovered. Any expenses were paid outside this, along with third party costs. The lawyers where paid at cost for some of the work. For other work they worked on a contingent basis assuming they were successful in the recovery. Am not saying this is possible in the case of COL or it is the right thing to do - it is just an example. On some non insolvency cases I have been involved with, a fee basis that was preferred was a percentage of the outcome which provides an incentive for the instructed party to maximise the return because their fee is a percentage of that outcome and the better job they do the more they earn. It is not a difficult sort of fee quote to provide once you have an idea of what you think you can achieve. Unfortunately when you are charging a flat hourly rate there is no real incentive to do a brilliant job or a poor job because your fee is unaffected. If you do a poor job you just end up taking a bigger slice of the pie for yourself. Of course with this type of administration there are human limits and it is impossible to get a high recovery out of duff loans secured against overvalued assets. On the face of it the COL loan book looks to be fairly well balanced by P2P standards with some pretty solid looking loans and some pretty rubbish looking ones. Only time will tell.
|
|
debaura
Member of DD Central
Posts: 277 
Likes: 318
|
Post by debaura on Jul 3, 2018 19:40:13 GMT
Just to be clear - sorry haven't had much time, we don't have to do anything with the Proof of Debt form? I have also changed address and sent an email to such, but have received no reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by fisherman on Jul 3, 2018 20:32:47 GMT
No, you don’t need to do anything with the Proof of Debt Form unless you want to be involved with the Creditors Committee.
|
|
debaura
Member of DD Central
Posts: 277
Likes: 318
|
Post by debaura on Jul 3, 2018 20:36:59 GMT
Thanks mate.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Jul 4, 2018 0:44:38 GMT
So, what now? Waiting? Am I right?
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,865
Likes: 1,860
|
Post by archie on Jul 4, 2018 6:22:58 GMT
So, what now? Waiting? Am I right? Today is the last day for anyone who is returning forms to vote. Resolution decisions determined tomorrow. Then we wait. 
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Aug 30, 2018 20:50:32 GMT
I wonder if they've made any progress with retrieving lender records (who invested in what).
Actually I'm wondering a lot...but this is my starting point.
|
|
