quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 294
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Mar 28, 2019 10:22:38 GMT
Just so everyone knows - the borrower submitted an application to appeal the latest order granted by the Judge stipulating the time period for lodging the relevant monies at court. It is clear from publically available sources that that appeal has been heard although I am unaware of the outcome although given the content of that order I suspect the rationale for that appeal must be that the borrower is unable to come up with the funds. If true ( lilo995 please provide a source of info, even if by PM – thx), it is nothing more than a delay tactic. The claimant/UBO has a demonstratable history (as shown by multiple internet searches) of histrionics, this is in line with her policy of “attrition” in each case the UBO has been involved in. We all know she has in excess of £6m of OUR funds hidden away behind several nominee companies. If she dips into the £6m for the SoC, then her lawyers will also want their share NOW. So she cannot touch it. She touches it, and the hidden location of funds is identified, so that when Lendy wins, there is a trace back to the funds for damages, which she does not wish for. Conclusion, she is still between a rock and a hard place (facts of the case have not changed), even if she stumps up the SoC. Were at least some of the funds not used to purchase the properties, not sure on the maths here?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,585
Likes: 6,674
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 28, 2019 10:22:52 GMT
Ah ok I've found it. Thanks
This is the case history:
26-Mar-19: Case given a final judgment 26-Mar-19: Case given a decision on paper 22-Mar-19: Application referred to Lord/Lady Justice 07-Mar-19: Bundle corrections were approved 27-Feb-19: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor requesting correction of bundles 14-Feb-19: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor to request bundles and/or documents
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Mar 28, 2019 10:47:17 GMT
Ah ok I've found it. Thanks
This is the case history:
26-Mar-19: Case given a final judgment 26-Mar-19: Case given a decision on paper 22-Mar-19: Application referred to Lord/Lady Justice 07-Mar-19: Bundle corrections were approved 27-Feb-19: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor requesting correction of bundles 14-Feb-19: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor to request bundles and/or documents
BRILLIANT WORK MOUSEY, you beat me to it. I will let you convey the great news to the forum.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Mar 28, 2019 10:51:57 GMT
If true ( lilo995 please provide a source of info, even if by PM – thx), it is nothing more than a delay tactic. The claimant/UBO has a demonstratable history (as shown by multiple internet searches) of histrionics, this is in line with her policy of “attrition” in each case the UBO has been involved in. We all know she has in excess of £6m of OUR funds hidden away behind several nominee companies. If she dips into the £6m for the SoC, then her lawyers will also want their share NOW. So she cannot touch it. She touches it, and the hidden location of funds is identified, so that when Lendy wins, there is a trace back to the funds for damages, which she does not wish for. Conclusion, she is still between a rock and a hard place (facts of the case have not changed), even if she stumps up the SoC. Were at least some of the funds not used to purchase the properties, not sure on the maths here?" Were at least some of the funds not used to purchase the properties, not sure on the maths here? " <--- UBO is the same, so funds from one pocket to another, it is one of the cleverest merry-go-arounds that I have come across when investigating an off shore setup.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,585
Likes: 6,674
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 28, 2019 10:53:32 GMT
I now have a copy of the order and the application to appeal was refused:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 11:02:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by darkgen on Mar 28, 2019 11:05:42 GMT
Wow; great work from all concerned!
Does this mean the threat of action (being served) is now over?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,585
Likes: 6,674
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 28, 2019 11:09:53 GMT
Wow; great work from all concerned! Does this mean the threat of action (being served) is now over? Sadly not
|
|
|
Post by robert490 on Mar 28, 2019 11:19:56 GMT
Can someone much more knowledgeable than I, kindly explain what this all means, and where as investors we now stand?..
Many thanks!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,204
Likes: 11,396
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 28, 2019 11:24:14 GMT
Can someone much more knowledgeable than I, kindly explain what this all means, and where as investors we now stand?.. Many thanks! It means nothing has changed. The claimant still has until the deadline set by the judge to serve/deposit the required funds.
|
|
|
Post by robert490 on Mar 28, 2019 11:27:20 GMT
Can someone much more knowledgeable than I, kindly explain what this all means, and where as investors we now stand?.. Many thanks! It means nothing has changed. The claimant still has until the deadline set by the judge to serve/deposit the required funds.
Ok, Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Mar 28, 2019 11:55:25 GMT
Just so everyone knows - the borrower submitted an application to appeal the latest order granted by the Judge stipulating the time period for lodging the relevant monies at court. It is clear from publically available sources that that appeal has been heard although I am unaware of the outcome although given the content of that order I suspect the rationale for that appeal must be that the borrower is unable to come up with the funds. Basically, its this appeal indicated by lilo955 above that was thrown out. She'd asked for the April 1st deadline to be moved. As far as I can see, 1600 on April 1st is still the deadline for serving us & paying the court, otherwise that will be the end of it.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,585
Likes: 6,674
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 28, 2019 12:03:06 GMT
As far as I can see, 1600 on April 1st is still the deadline for serving us & paying the court, otherwise that will be the end of it. One road would definitely be closed, the legal sat nav might find another route though so not quite the final chapter.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,595
Likes: 5,017
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 28, 2019 12:27:05 GMT
As far as I can see, 1600 on April 1st is still the deadline for serving us & paying the court, otherwise that will be the end of it.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Mar 28, 2019 15:10:10 GMT
As far as I can see, 1600 on April 1st is still the deadline for serving us & paying the court, otherwise that will be the end of it. To clarify for all. The deadlines still stands at 4pm on the 1st April for either the Security of Costs to be paid, AND/OR the lenders to be filed against for this claim. If the SoC is not paid by the deadline then that case will end. If the lenders are not filed by the deadline, then the threatened claim against the lenders will end. The caveat is that the Judge did stipulate that should the deadline pass, there is nothing to stop the claimant restarting proceedings against the lenders. He was not specific about re-starting against Lendy et al. The very good news for us, the lenders, is the Judges recent summary of his take of the case, "t he strength of the claim is obviously a relevant factor in determining an applicaiton for security "<-- in laymans terms, this means that as security of Costs was upheld, the Judge does not place that much strength on the claim. As the saying goes, it is not over till the fat lady sings, and the ball is in the claimants' side at the moment.
|
|