neeps
Posts: 81
Likes: 120
|
Post by neeps on Oct 25, 2019 20:19:55 GMT
Question to Monetus. Bearing in mind the level of involvement you have now with Lendy, do you still feel that it's been worthwhile spending your valuable time attending the CCC meetings? A one word answer will be fine! My gut feeling is that we're being strung along to a most dissatisfactory conclusion, but I urge anyone who hasn't used duck's letter to write to their MP, to do so asap. At least we can then feel that we've tried. Absolutely valuable. Just because I can't tell you what's happening doesn't mean that things aren't happening. Thanks for that and many thanks for your ongoing efforts with this & Lendy. I'd like to buy you a drink sometime!!
|
|
mj87
Posts: 24
Likes: 6
|
Post by mj87 on Oct 25, 2019 21:13:24 GMT
When will we be contacted by BDO regarding what the update is. I have not received any correspondence from them for the last (circa) 12 months?
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Oct 25, 2019 22:50:32 GMT
When will we be contacted by BDO regarding what the update is. I have not received any correspondence from them for the last (circa) 12 months? Even Lendy scheduled their first partial investor’s fund distribution after merely a few months. When will this happen for Collateral?
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Oct 25, 2019 23:07:06 GMT
For those comparing the administrations of Lendy and Collateral you need to realise that they aren’t comparable in any way, shape or form.
Lendy was a fully FCA authorised and regulated business with a backup provider in place, a full set of books and records, a fully functioning IT platform, retained staff and a fully functioning office.
Collateral was an unregulated platform seemingly operating without authorisation to carry out regulated activities and had none of the above.
Of course the Lendy administration is going to be more straightforward with faster payments and more information able to be shared in the public domain. This isn’t necessarily down to the performance of the administrators themselves.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 26, 2019 7:38:08 GMT
Lenders have been reminded at each and every occasion that Collateral was run improperly and in particular without all the necessary records and backups. in those circumstances the Administrators ought to be making decisions based on what they have rather than spending inordinate amounts of lenders money and many months on reconstructing a mythical and inevitably imperfect version of a regulated business. Collateral was a small platform. It had a reasonable amount of money belonging to other people which it managed in the form of loans. It had few assets of its own. It is not reasonable that bucket loads of money belonging to lenders should be spent on sorting out the disorganised records of the company when much of the blame for this debacle lies at the feet of the FCA. The behaviour of the regulators in this matter has been downright immoral. They put a Rolls Royce all bells and whistles insolvency firm into a tuppence halfpenny platform when something much less expensive would have been appropriate. Finally what is the purpose of a so-called creditors committee that is so firmly gagged that apart from issuing a few platitudes and informing lenders of the time of day that no information can be released? If it is active what in meaningful terms has been done?
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 26, 2019 10:04:36 GMT
When will we be contacted by BDO regarding what the update is. I have not received any correspondence from them for the last (circa) 12 months? If you haven't seen it BDO sent a letter to all known investors and creditors on 24/4/19. You will find the document on the BDO website. Basically they were moving from Administration to Liquidation and would provide a further report in 12 months time. Also how much it was all costing. No-one so far as I know has yet received a single penny.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Oct 26, 2019 11:58:06 GMT
Lenders have been reminded at each and every occasion that Collateral was run improperly and in particular without all the necessary records and backups. in those circumstances the Administrators ought to be making decisions based on what they have rather than spending inordinate amounts of lenders money and many months on reconstructing a mythical and inevitably imperfect version of a regulated business. Collateral was a small platform. It had a reasonable amount of money belonging to other people which it managed in the form of loans. It had few assets of its own. It is not reasonable that bucket loads of money belonging to lenders should be spent on sorting out the disorganised records of the company when much of the blame for this debacle lies at the feet of the FCA. The behaviour of the regulators in this matter has been downright immoral. They put a Rolls Royce all bells and whistles insolvency firm into a tuppence halfpenny platform when something much less expensive would have been appropriate. Finally what is the purpose of a so-called creditors committee that is so firmly gagged that apart from issuing a few platitudes and informing lenders of the time of day that no information can be released? If it is active what in meaningful terms has been done? A Tad hard there Monetus has told us what he can. NDA's tie his hands and everyone else. Brodcasting negotiations may well put recovery in jeopardy if bad borrowers feel they have an edge. Database now recovered so costs should be greatly reduced and have to be justified. Just wait a little longer.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Oct 26, 2019 12:12:32 GMT
Lenders have been reminded at each and every occasion that Collateral was run improperly and in particular without all the necessary records and backups. in those circumstances the Administrators ought to be making decisions based on what they have rather than spending inordinate amounts of lenders money and many months on reconstructing a mythical and inevitably imperfect version of a regulated business. Collateral was a small platform. It had a reasonable amount of money belonging to other people which it managed in the form of loans. It had few assets of its own. It is not reasonable that bucket loads of money belonging to lenders should be spent on sorting out the disorganised records of the company when much of the blame for this debacle lies at the feet of the FCA. The behaviour of the regulators in this matter has been downright immoral. They put a Rolls Royce all bells and whistles insolvency firm into a tuppence halfpenny platform when something much less expensive would have been appropriate. Finally what is the purpose of a so-called creditors committee that is so firmly gagged that apart from issuing a few platitudes and informing lenders of the time of day that no information can be released? If it is active what in meaningful terms has been done? And when the pay out based on incomplete records and brightspark happens to get nothing and others are paid in full, will you just shrug and say oh well, or will you sue the administrators/try to get them struck off/write to your MP.....?
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 26, 2019 16:40:48 GMT
I shall shrug my shoulders and move on.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 26, 2019 18:53:59 GMT
Lenders have been reminded at each and every occasion that Collateral was run improperly and in particular without all the necessary records and backups. in those circumstances the Administrators ought to be making decisions based on what they have rather than spending inordinate amounts of lenders money and many months on reconstructing a mythical and inevitably imperfect version of a regulated business. Collateral was a small platform. It had a reasonable amount of money belonging to other people which it managed in the form of loans. It had few assets of its own. It is not reasonable that bucket loads of money belonging to lenders should be spent on sorting out the disorganised records of the company when much of the blame for this debacle lies at the feet of the FCA. The behaviour of the regulators in this matter has been downright immoral. They put a Rolls Royce all bells and whistles insolvency firm into a tuppence halfpenny platform when something much less expensive would have been appropriate. Finally what is the purpose of a so-called creditors committee that is so firmly gagged that apart from issuing a few platitudes and informing lenders of the time of day that no information can be released? If it is active what in meaningful terms has been done? A Tad hard there Monetus has told us what he can. NDA's tie his hands and everyone else. Brodcasting negotiations may well put recovery in jeopardy if bad borrowers feel they have an edge. Database now recovered so costs should be greatly reduced and have to be justified. Just wait a little longer. It was intended to be hard not on the committee but on a system which makes lenders on any platform vulnerable to predatory actions of those responsible for taking things forward after platform failure. It seems to me that lenders are being treated exactly as creditors which is not entirely the case. Investors trade via platforms and not with platforms and pay fees for platforms handling of transactions. Investor money not being traded should be being held in separate ring fenced accounts or so we are led to believe. The assets of Collateral are small but with the much larger amount of investor money tied up the use of top tier Administrators was forced by FCA onto Collateral mainly to cover their rear-guards. The argumentation for racking up a large fee then becomes that Collateral had virtually nothing in the bank to pay for Administration so the disproportionately, to the assets of Collateral, enormous pot of easy to get their hands on investors money is to be employed - the alternative implied threat being that the recovery action could not go ahead and investors could whistle for their money. it is modern business ethics at their worst. I appreciate that Collateral was conducting unregulated trading and all that but they were trading in the full light of day completely visible to the FCA and not apparently conducting a scam. In the above circumstances the creditors committee does have a role, some would opine an important role, with Administrators, but how are creditors to know how it is being played out if a blanket NDA is in force?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,338
Likes: 2,754
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 26, 2019 20:22:46 GMT
A Tad hard there Monetus has told us what he can. NDA's tie his hands and everyone else. Brodcasting negotiations may well put recovery in jeopardy if bad borrowers feel they have an edge. Database now recovered so costs should be greatly reduced and have to be justified. Just wait a little longer. It was intended to be hard not on the committee but on a system which makes lenders on any platform vulnerable to predatory actions of those responsible for taking things forward after platform failure. It seems to me that lenders are being treated exactly as creditors which is not entirely the case. Investors trade via platforms and not with platforms and pay fees for platforms handling of transactions. Investor money not being traded should be being held in separate ring fenced accounts or so we are led to believe. The assets of Collateral are small but with the much larger amount of investor money tied up the use of top tier Administrators was forced by FCA onto Collateral mainly to cover their rear-guards. The argumentation for racking up a large fee then becomes that Collateral had virtually nothing in the bank to pay for Administration so the disproportionately, to the assets of Collateral, enormous pot of easy to get their hands on investors money is to be employed - the alternative implied threat being that the recovery action could not go ahead and investors could whistle for their money. it is modern business ethics at their worst. I appreciate that Collateral was conducting unregulated trading and all that but they were trading in the full light of day completely visible to the FCA and not apparently conducting a scam. In the above circumstances the creditors committee does have a role, some would opine an important role, with Administrators, but how are creditors to know how it is being played out if a blanket NDA is in force? I agree that the NDA prevents lenders from knowing what is going on, which is really irritating and you wonder if you would get more information with no CC. Col is a really tricky situation, it was never FCA authorised so all bets are off really, but even if their interim permission was valid, this would also mean pretty much nothing, only that the FCA were going to get round to look at the company to decide if permission should be granted. i Don't think it was ever a scam just a really badly run business.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 731
Likes: 849
|
Post by 11025 on Oct 27, 2019 8:21:31 GMT
It was intended to be hard not on the committee but on a system which makes lenders on any platform vulnerable to predatory actions of those responsible for taking things forward after platform failure. It seems to me that lenders are being treated exactly as creditors which is not entirely the case. Investors trade via platforms and not with platforms and pay fees for platforms handling of transactions. Investor money not being traded should be being held in separate ring fenced accounts or so we are led to believe. The assets of Collateral are small but with the much larger amount of investor money tied up the use of top tier Administrators was forced by FCA onto Collateral mainly to cover their rear-guards. The argumentation for racking up a large fee then becomes that Collateral had virtually nothing in the bank to pay for Administration so the disproportionately, to the assets of Collateral, enormous pot of easy to get their hands on investors money is to be employed - the alternative implied threat being that the recovery action could not go ahead and investors could whistle for their money. it is modern business ethics at their worst. I appreciate that Collateral was conducting unregulated trading and all that but they were trading in the full light of day completely visible to the FCA and not apparently conducting a scam. In the above circumstances the creditors committee does have a role, some would opine an important role, with Administrators, but how are creditors to know how it is being played out if a blanket NDA is in force? I agree that the NDA prevents lenders from knowing what is going on, which is really irritating and you wonder if you would get more information with no CC. Col is a really tricky situation, it was never FCA authorised so all bets are off really, but even if their interim permission was valid, this would also mean pretty much nothing, only that the FCA were going to get round to look at the company to decide if permission should be granted. i Don't think it was ever a scam just a really badly run business. I think you may need to do a few more minutes of research , it is way more complicated and shocking than that.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Oct 27, 2019 9:02:20 GMT
Och that's all right then Greenwood2 they were just slow in getting round to it aye. Have you read Duck's letter? Suggest you do.
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Oct 29, 2019 16:46:02 GMT
Now that "The database has been recovered and all accounts reconciled", would we have access to our Accounts on the Platform or a statement of Account Transactions in the near future (next few weeks, rather than months).
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Oct 29, 2019 18:12:55 GMT
Now that "The database has been recovered and all accounts reconciled", would we have access to our Accounts on the Platform or a statement of Account Transactions in the near future (next few weeks, rather than months). Yes BDO are planning on sending out a report to all investors showing their individual position as soon as feasible.
|
|