cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Jul 6, 2020 12:52:59 GMT
I thought it was removed due to court issues still to be resolved. Now that there is green light it can be freely sold. Sorry, what was removed? I think you mean Lendy effectively won the case, so there are no more litigation issues? And this is true - I think. However, because the borrower is not likely to stump up our litigation costs (I dont think the solicitors even applied to do so), we will have to stump up these costs ourselves, even though it was Lendy who was Defending itself! The current creditors/directors will insist. Not sure how much this will amount to....half a million maybe. So, if we get for argument sake £4M from the sale, then we will end up with £3.5M before the waterfall payments which according to LAG/MP, will get around 57% of the £3.5M or £2M. This would mean that we would get back (if we are lucky) around 2/7.5 = 27% of what we put in. There may be more deductions that I am not aware of and we may get more or less than £4M from the auction on the 16th July. Shouldn't the one losing the case paying for the legal fees? So in that case not lendy but the landlady?
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,118
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by rocky1 on Jul 6, 2020 14:13:54 GMT
this was lendys mess and LB/lendy were the ones the cases was brought against. any costs for any of this mess should be paid by them and not lenders. maybe they could use some of the£ 6+million syphoned off to various accounts abroard.we never had a chance with this loan stuck between a scamming borrower and an even bigger scamming platform who have both done the deeds and walked away. LB and this borrower are like two peas in a pod.
|
|
|
Post by gaza77 on Jul 6, 2020 16:05:28 GMT
Sorry, what was removed? I think you mean Lendy effectively won the case, so there are no more litigation issues? And this is true - I think. However, because the borrower is not likely to stump up our litigation costs (I dont think the solicitors even applied to do so), we will have to stump up these costs ourselves, even though it was Lendy who was Defending itself! The current creditors/directors will insist. Not sure how much this will amount to....half a million maybe. So, if we get for argument sake £4M from the sale, then we will end up with £3.5M before the waterfall payments which according to LAG/MP, will get around 57% of the £3.5M or £2M. This would mean that we would get back (if we are lucky) around 2/7.5 = 27% of what we put in. There may be more deductions that I am not aware of and we may get more or less than £4M from the auction on the 16th July. Shouldn't the one losing the case paying for the legal fees? So in that case not lendy but the landlady? Yes, in the normal world, but like I said Lendy’s solicitors didn't bother chasing the borrower, because there was little chance in recovering the costs as all her assets are abroad. As Lendy therefore has footed the bill, it will be charged to us. The creditors will insist in the wind down. I know it is not fair, especially as the litigation was against Lendy, and not against us. I remember at the time when we were waiting for the email from the borrower to say she was going to litigate against us individually - I must admit I was very worried. We could have got done twice!! It is doubly unfair because Lendy obviously didn't do their due diligence very well (if at all), as they lent our money to an overseas company, headed by a Vicious and litigious woman, making any personal guarantees absolutely worthless! You couldn't make this up.
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Jul 6, 2020 20:27:41 GMT
So much corruption! I m sure she has other assets in the uk but they must all be under cover
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 6, 2020 20:52:09 GMT
So much corruption! I m sure she has other assets in the uk but they must all be under cover No so much undercover, but held by third parties and "independent" names/companies.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,118
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by rocky1 on Jul 7, 2020 4:16:00 GMT
a bit like the set up LB/TG created for themselves.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,545
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 13, 2020 21:45:51 GMT
I understand a filing was made at the court regarding this case at 04:42 PM today. I'm not privy as to which party filed it or what the filing was
|
|
|
Post by gaza77 on Jul 14, 2020 10:42:35 GMT
I understand a filing was made at the court regarding this case at 04:42 PM today. I'm not privy as to which party filed it or what the filing was Thanks Mousey. Any more info on this? Hopefully, it is not you-know-who?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,545
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 14, 2020 14:22:20 GMT
I understand a filing was made at the court regarding this case at 04:42 PM today. I'm not privy as to which party filed it or what the filing was Thanks Mousey. Any more info on this? Hopefully, it is not you-know-who? We'll find out tomorrow as it's back in court!
The Rolls Buildings, Court ** – Remotely via Skype*
Before MR JUSTICE N****
Wednesday 15 July 2020
At 10:30 AM
Interim Applications List
BL-2018-****** Borrower and another v The Receiver
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,545
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 15, 2020 10:48:19 GMT
Case to be heard now at 14.00.
The borrower is represented by someone from CLIPS - Chancery Bar Litigant in Person Support Scheme.
Lendy are represented as are the receivers.
|
|
Jaydee
Member of DD Central
Posts: 415
Likes: 791
|
Post by Jaydee on Jul 15, 2020 15:21:57 GMT
Injunction not granted. sale goes ahead tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by gaza77 on Jul 15, 2020 15:35:53 GMT
Injunction not granted. sale goes ahead tomorrow Jaydee thank you very, very much for that! Phew!
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 15, 2020 16:01:05 GMT
Nearly 500 pages of documents submitted to court.
Generally, a recap of the entire case, since inception.
Notable points of today’s hearing in a brief note format:
Claimant wants stay of the auction tomorrow.
A £4.5m offer for the property has been received.
Applicant in the process of obtaining litigation funding to revive claims and bring new claims! Nice!!
She is obtaining a written opinion from Dxxxx Bxxxx QC, which is needed to obtain the litigation funding. This should occur in about a week, hence the injunction to restrain the sale tomorrow, until more detailed evidence is produced for the Courts.
Various article 36h clauses and FSMA contradictions were submitted to justify the request.
Judge said that there is an Arguable claim for misrepresentation and to be void under FSMA, and also breach of contract for damages (against Lendy?).
Argued by Mxxx Wexxxxx that the daughter (NL) cannot bring any proceedings as she is not a Director, nor shareholder. Whichever corporate entity holds title has to bring the claims, NL just has the benefit of the trust. Various other complex legal arguments for and against the stay tomorrow.
Conclusion: Judge states, she is not in a position to bring the claim, this is not a claim that has sprung up over night but was mentioned as far back as Dec 2018, she has had ample opportunity to bring the claim and not followed through. The next problem is there is an extant order, without any previous sums having been paid. No good reason why a court should allow a claim to be brought if the previous costs have not been discharged, and various other reasons why DISMISSED.
Auction can proceed tomorrow.
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Jul 15, 2020 20:13:34 GMT
Only £4.5M? I was hoping for more. Hopefully the auction will see higher offers
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Jul 16, 2020 9:47:21 GMT
Only £4.5M? I was hoping for more. Hopefully the auction will see higher offers Well, either the feed was faulty or this one failed to attract a bid. The end time was pushed back several times (only by a couple of minutes or so) but finally ended at 10:47 "Not Sold"
|
|