Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 6,513
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 18, 2020 13:20:31 GMT
This site is a complicated one wrt planning and what not. Auction would be a bad route IMO due to the level of DD required.
|
|
|
Post by gaza77 on Jan 31, 2020 10:57:06 GMT
L**A T****R from LAG is currently raising funds to fight the unfair waterfall mechanism. It is in all of our interests to donate to this!
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jan 31, 2020 15:20:22 GMT
It cannot be a case of unfairness as there is no legislation as such to mount such a case. In some way or form it will be a case of the platform management either carrying out misrepresentation or failing in a duty of care. I am not a lawyer but in my view it would be impossible to argue a case for fairness per se. As far as I am aware LAG has as its first gripe setting aside the waterfall mechanism but I believe there are several other matters that they also wish to pursue funds permitting.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,739
Likes: 3,134
|
Post by jonno on Jan 31, 2020 16:38:05 GMT
It cannot be a case of unfairness as there is no legislation as such to mount such a case. In some way or form it will be a case of the platform management either carrying out misrepresentation or failing in a duty of care. I am not a lawyer but in my view it would be impossible to argue a case for fairness per se. As far as I am aware LAG has as its first gripe setting aside the waterfall mechanism but I believe there are several other matters that they also wish to pursue funds permitting. So whatever happened to the notion of "Natural Justice" i.e. "The Duty To Act Fairly"?
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jan 31, 2020 18:57:52 GMT
It cannot be a case of unfairness as there is no legislation as such to mount such a case. In some way or form it will be a case of the platform management either carrying out misrepresentation or failing in a duty of care. I am not a lawyer but in my view it would be impossible to argue a case for fairness per se. As far as I am aware LAG has as its first gripe setting aside the waterfall mechanism but I believe there are several other matters that they also wish to pursue funds permitting.
Unfair contract terms?
The waterfall allows for charges to be paid to Lendy to the detriment of lenders. The level of these charges are in confidential documents between Lendy and borrowers even though they significantly impact on the returns to lenders. If charges are not disclosed to lenders so they cannot reasonably determine the effect on the return to them, then in my opinion the contract between Lendy and lenders should be deemed as unfair under provisions set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
I'm not a lawyer and have no legal training. But that's my opinion.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 2,440
|
Post by iRobot on Jan 31, 2020 19:08:27 GMT
It cannot be a case of unfairness as there is no legislation as such to mount such a case. In some way or form it will be a case of the platform management either carrying out misrepresentation or failing in a duty of care. I am not a lawyer but in my view it would be impossible to argue a case for fairness per se. As far as I am aware LAG has as its first gripe setting aside the waterfall mechanism but I believe there are several other matters that they also wish to pursue funds permitting.
Unfair contract terms?
The waterfall allows for charges to be paid to Lendy to the detriment of lenders. The level of these charges are in confidential documents between Lendy and borrowers even though they significantly impact on the returns to lenders. If charges are not disclosed to lenders so they cannot reasonably determine the effect on the return to them, then in my opinion the contract between Lendy and lenders should be deemed as unfair under provisions set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
I'm not a lawyer and have no legal training. But that's my opinion.
To overturn the contentious waterfall on that basis would seem to be the just outcome. Sadly there can be a huge chasm between appropriate justice and applicable law.
|
|
|
Post by gaza77 on Jan 31, 2020 19:53:45 GMT
It cannot be a case of unfairness as there is no legislation as such to mount such a case. In some way or form it will be a case of the platform management either carrying out misrepresentation or failing in a duty of care. I am not a lawyer but in my view it would be impossible to argue a case for fairness per se. As far as I am aware LAG has as its first gripe setting aside the waterfall mechanism but I believe there are several other matters that they also wish to pursue funds permitting. I suggest you look at what L*** T**** on the LAG website is trying to do and where she thinks we have a good case. We wont be able to change all of the waterfall but L*** T***** said that there were things that L**** didn't tell us. These are the things they are going after. It amounts to around 20-30% of the waterfall mechanism and the amount that Li*m and the rest will get if we dont challenge.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Feb 2, 2020 21:38:25 GMT
I am not against challenges per se but simply on the basis of fairness could be a hiding to nothing. Business is buying cheap to sell dear with profit being the difference. When this becomes unfair can be a moot point.
|
|
wuzimu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 735
|
Post by wuzimu on Feb 2, 2020 22:46:24 GMT
I am not against challenges per se but simply on the basis of fairness could be a hiding to nothing. Business is buying cheap to sell dear with profit being the difference. When this becomes unfair can be a moot point. You are barking up the wrong tree here.
The reason for this whole brou-haha is not that the waterfall is likely fair. It is not fair or legal, any idiot knows you can't enforce a contract with secret terms inserted into it.
However a court must give directions, the FCA have said so. RSM are taking the line that they will apply the papers they have before them unless the Court directs otherwise (this is why LAG input to present the other side is so important).
However the bigger the deal made of this, the more fees RSM and their legal team can extract. The fees have already gone from £1m + VAT to £2.5m +VAT. That's largely down to the AML balls up. Just imagine RSM's next revised fee claim when they have been procrastinating on the waterfall for a few months + Court hearing. And M2 lenders are paying for all this BTW... Thats as well as lenders having to fund LAG challenge (which HAS to happen or something very unfair may well happen at Court).
The whole thing is disgusting waste of money, but RSM will be doing very nicely out of it. Administrators need to be paid, fair enough, but this looks like shameless greed and I hope before much longer the truth is widely appreciated in the financial community and beyond.
I hope and expect LAG to alert MP's and try and get an inquiry in due course about the way the administration of many failed P2P platforms have gone. The 'professionals' involved simply taking advantage to plunder trust assets without any regard for prudence or the interests of trust beneficiaries (ie lenders) beuase of the lack of clarity whether they are in fact also creditors. Amen
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 23:06:05 GMT
The reason for this whole brou-haha is not that the waterfall is likely fair. It is not fair or legal, any idiot knows you can't enforce a contract with secret terms inserted into it. However a court must give directions, the FCA have said so. RSM are taking the line that they will apply the papers they have before them unless the Court directs otherwise (this is why LAG input to present the other side is so important). And this is why I have a funny feeling that the language around Lendy acting as Lenders agents is going to be tested to destruction and ruled upon... with consequences for all P2P platforms with similar language in their T&Cs...
|
|
MarkT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 190
Likes: 159
|
Post by MarkT on Feb 3, 2020 13:26:17 GMT
It's a great business to be in where the more incompetent you are the more money you make.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 3, 2020 16:12:59 GMT
I am not against challenges per se but simply on the basis of fairness could be a hiding to nothing. Business is buying cheap to sell dear with profit being the difference. When this becomes unfair can be a moot point.
By way of clarification about my previous post. I'm not just claiming that this isn't right because I feel it's unfair. I'm claiming that it's unfair because I believe it breaches the terms within this 144 page document which sets out detailed guidance about what is deemed to be legally unfair in consumer contract law:
It doesn't mean I'm right but it's the source of my claims.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 3, 2020 16:16:49 GMT
I am not against challenges per se but simply on the basis of fairness could be a hiding to nothing. Business is buying cheap to sell dear with profit being the difference. When this becomes unfair can be a moot point. You are barking up the wrong tree here.
The reason for this whole brou-haha is not that the waterfall is likely fair. It is not fair or legal, any idiot knows you can't enforce a contract with secret terms inserted into it.
However a court must give directions, the FCA have said so. RSM are taking the line that they will apply the papers they have before them unless the Court directs otherwise (this is why LAG input to present the other side is so important).
However the bigger the deal made of this, the more fees RSM and their legal team can extract. The fees have already gone from £1m + VAT to £2.5m +VAT. That's largely down to the AML balls up. Just imagine RSM's next revised fee claim when they have been procrastinating on the waterfall for a few months + Court hearing. And M2 lenders are paying for all this BTW... Thats as well as lenders having to fund LAG challenge (which HAS to happen or something very unfair may well happen at Court).
The whole thing is disgusting waste of money, but RSM will be doing very nicely out of it. Administrators need to be paid, fair enough, but this looks like shameless greed and I hope before much longer the truth is widely appreciated in the financial community and beyond.
I hope and expect LAG to alert MP's and try and get an inquiry in due course about the way the administration of many failed P2P platforms have gone. The 'professionals' involved simply taking advantage to plunder trust assets without any regard for prudence or the interests of trust beneficiaries (ie lenders) beuase of the lack of clarity whether they are in fact also creditors. Amen
I was interested to read the part I have put in bold above. I believe you are closer to this than me. The way you have written this sounds like RSM are asking for court guidance. Are RSM using this as a test case to see what is right and then will follow the judgement? Or are they just plain fighting the case because they believe they are right?
It is possible that RSM want the court to rule on it so that they can go back to creditors and say, Oh well we tried our best but the court ruled against us. Then they have a defence if the creditors kick up a fuss.
And do you have any further details (or point me in the right direction) of what the FCA said?
Edit: And a further thought. Do you have any idea what legal responsibility and liability the administrators have for the operation of the business? If the business has been operating against the law and the administrators perpetuate the unlawful acts do they have any liability?
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 4, 2020 16:06:20 GMT
Following my post above RSM have now issued a further update to investors which states among other things:
"Noting the complexity of the matter and the challenges received on the application of the contractual position the Joint Administrators have resolved to make an application to Court to seek direction on the matter"
While I'm sure we would all wish that RSM would just see the terms as unfair and find in our favour without a court case, let's hope that they do genuinely seek direction and don't just fight to retain Lendy's undisclosed fees (and to increase their own fees). One court case is more than enough. Assuming the terms are found to be unfair I very much hope they do follow this direction rather than appeal and continue to fight.
Is anyone involved with LAG able to give any indication on how they feel RSM are approaching this? Can you say?
|
|
|
Post by banffy on Feb 26, 2020 13:41:30 GMT
Any info from anyone if this London Loan sold at auction which I think was 25 Feb?
|
|