bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 4, 2020 10:53:29 GMT
The general consensus seems to be that this has to be a salvage exercise going forward with chance of a full recovery non-existent. How can you say that's the general consensus when 81% of voters in the recently held voted differently?
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Mar 4, 2020 11:26:18 GMT
81% of voters (including myself) were misled.
We voted on releasing security so the borrower could obtain finance from an alternate lender, in exchange part of the refinance would be returned to A/C lenders and A/C would obtain a second charge. As soon as this was agreed, with payment expected by the end of feb, the borrower has tried to increase the borrowing with the following result:-
1) Payment delayed to at least end April, which further delays to the final "potential" recovery.
2) Weakened value of the second charge. If the borrower were to default on the refinanced loan we would have less equity in the refinanced plots due to the larger loan.
3) No suggestion of a larger return of capital to A/C lenders, I assume the extra cash is to shore up the failing hotel/golf course. As lenders we would be be better off if the business did fail because then recovery action could start.
Furthermore A/C have not been very forthcoming in their updates/ Q&A responses, considering they claim to be in weekly contact with the borrower they seem to have little idea of what the borrower is up to, and they seem prepared to allow him to string this loan out forever using endless devious tricks.
There have been too many failed plans, lies, prevarications and obfuscations, all of which have been passively soaked up by Assetz, who seem to think that a loan can happily stay in indefinite default as long as they can fool sufficient lenders.
Should there be formal complaints if no cash appears by the end of April? Definately!!
We would need to form an Action Group and communicate proposed actions via a private space.
Voting is heavily skewed because the only opinions are provided by A/C and the borrower, if a lender group could make its views known in a ballot Mr. ********* would be long gone from this miserable business.
Sniping on this forum will not spur A/C into Action. I have no confidence in the wriggling of A/C directors, the bullet has rotted long past the biting stage. Public Humiliation regarding their appalling response to this loan might produce a better result.
The 'Daily Mail' comes to mind.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Mar 4, 2020 11:29:58 GMT
81% of voters (including myself) were misled. We voted on releasing security so the borrower could obtain finance from an alternate lender, in exchange part of the refinance would be returned to A/C lenders and A/C would obtain a second charge. As soon as this was agreed, with payment expected by the end of feb, the borrower has tried to increase the borrowing with the following result:- ... 2) Weakened value of the second charge. If the borrower were to default on the refinanced loan we would have less equity in the refinanced plots due to the larger loan...... Have we actually surrendered the charge already?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 4, 2020 11:45:45 GMT
The general consensus seems to be that this has to be a salvage exercise going forward with chance of a full recovery non-existent. How can you say that's the general consensus when 81% of voters in the recently held voted differently? Voters have been wrong 8 times before in thinking Option A would deliver a result, I suspect they're about to be wrong for a 9th consecutive time.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 4, 2020 13:39:53 GMT
81% of voters (including myself) were misled. We voted on releasing security so the borrower could obtain finance from an alternate lender, in exchange part of the refinance would be returned to A/C lenders and A/C would obtain a second charge. As soon as this was agreed, with payment expected by the end of feb, the borrower has tried to increase the borrowing with the following result:- 1) Payment delayed to at least end April, which further delays to the final "potential" recovery. 2) Weakened value of the second charge. If the borrower were to default on the refinanced loan we would have less equity in the refinanced plots due to the larger loan. 3) No suggestion of a larger return of capital to A/C lenders, I assume the extra cash is to shore up the failing hotel/golf course. As lenders we would be be better off if the business did fail because then recovery action could start. Furthermore A/C have not been very forthcoming in their updates/ Q&A responses, considering they claim to be in weekly contact with the borrower they seem to have little idea of what the borrower is up to, and they seem prepared to allow him to string this loan out forever using endless devious tricks. There have been too many failed plans, lies, prevarications and obfuscations, all of which have been passively soaked up by Assetz, who seem to think that a loan can happily stay in indefinite default as long as they can fool sufficient lenders. Should there be formal complaints if no cash appears by the end of April? Definately!! We would need to form an Action Group and communicate proposed actions via a private space. Voting is heavily skewed because the only opinions are provided by A/C and the borrower, if a lender group could make its views known in a ballot Mr. ********* would be long gone from this miserable business. Sniping on this forum will not spur A/C into Action. I have no confidence in the wriggling of A/C directors, the bullet has rotted long past the biting stage. Public Humiliation regarding their appalling response to this loan might produce a better result. The 'Daily Mail' comes to mind. I think the AC team that look after this loan have been so close to the Borrower for so long, listening to the ever growing list of the Borrower's woes that they've unconsciously (if I'm being charitable, otherwise consciously) started to side with the Borrower, letting them put out any statement they like without questioning a single thing.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 4, 2020 14:04:50 GMT
To refine my original remark a "general consensus" is not simply those 81% who voted in favour of the latest proposal. It is akin to those who post on this thread. There are very few anywhere near recent postings that have urged a "softly softly catches monkey approach". Most now want a hard line.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Mar 4, 2020 14:57:04 GMT
CB actually said I think the AC team that look after this loan have been so close to the Borrower for so long, listening to the ever growing list of the Borrower's woes that they've unconsciously (if I'm being charitable, otherwise consciously) started to side with the Borrower, letting them put out any statement they like without questioning a single thing.Stockholm syndrome? Actually I don't think that's the case, they hate the £$%^&*( as much as we do. And the top brass saying to themselves every day what were we thinking
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Mar 4, 2020 15:00:09 GMT
It's 81% of the money voted for forbearance, or purgatory or charity or whatever it was. NOT 81% of voters
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 4, 2020 15:06:52 GMT
It's 81% of the money voted for forbearance, or purgatory or charity or whatever it was. NOT 81% of voters That's true but its how the system works. Same as a shareholder vote not being one vote per shareholder.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Mar 4, 2020 15:12:57 GMT
It's 81% of the money voted for forbearance, or purgatory or charity or whatever it was. NOT 81% of voters That's true but its how the system works. Same as a shareholder vote not being one vote per shareholder. As it should be. Just that someone else said 81% of us,
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 4, 2020 15:29:56 GMT
CB actually said I think the AC team that look after this loan have been so close to the Borrower for so long, listening to the ever growing list of the Borrower's woes that they've unconsciously (if I'm being charitable, otherwise consciously) started to side with the Borrower, letting them put out any statement they like without questioning a single thing.Stockholm syndrome? Actually I don't think that's the case, they hate the £$%^&*( as much as we do. And the top brass saying to themselves every day what were we thinkingI was thinking it's similar to 'regulatory capture' where people claim that regulators, e.g. of financial firms, get so close to the regulated firms that they act in their favour rather than neutrally. As to "what were we thinking", I only hope that's true
|
|
Mick
Be nice... People respond.
Posts: 138
Likes: 93
|
Post by Mick on Mar 5, 2020 11:41:39 GMT
It seems that things change regarding the control of voting if the Borrower is deemed Trading Insolvently. This question was asked but Assetz replied that it was for the Borrower to consider. If a supplier/ Lender were to press for payment and the Borrower were unable to pay would this necessitate The Borrower conceding that the company is insolvent? If the Borrower knowingly traded insolvently This is an offence in England, I don't suppose it'll be much different in Scotland.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 5, 2020 15:57:28 GMT
It seems that things change regarding the control of voting if the Borrower is deemed Trading Insolvently. This question was asked but Assetz replied that it was for the Borrower to consider. If a supplier/ Lender were to press for payment and the Borrower were unable to pay would this necessitate The Borrower conceding that the company is insolvent? If the Borrower knowingly traded insolvently This is an offence in England, I don't suppose it'll be much different in Scotland. I raised a Question on the Q&A section of this loan back in 6th Nov 2019 (at 09:54). The Borrower dodged the question.
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 476
Likes: 257
|
Post by tonyr on Mar 6, 2020 7:52:06 GMT
It seems that things change regarding the control of voting if the Borrower is deemed Trading Insolvently. This question was asked but Assetz replied that it was for the Borrower to consider. If a supplier/ Lender were to press for payment and the Borrower were unable to pay would this necessitate The Borrower conceding that the company is insolvent? If the Borrower knowingly traded insolvently This is an offence in England, I don't suppose it'll be much different in Scotland. I raised a Question on the Q&A section of this loan back in 6th Nov 2019 (at 09:54). The Borrower dodged the question. Didn't the borrower delay filing at companies house until after the vote just so that they could say that they were solvent?
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Mar 6, 2020 8:01:19 GMT
Any thoughts on the proposal? Personally I don't like it. and so on this charade goes, 17 months later
|
|