|
|
Post by cazzy on Oct 28, 2018 23:56:50 GMT
The case has been successful in court so far. The order is available on google
|
|
sj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 229 
Likes: 330
|
Post by sj on Oct 29, 2018 0:02:22 GMT
And who are you, cazzy? What is your relation to the loan and to the case? |
|
|
|
Post by cazzy on Oct 29, 2018 0:29:28 GMT
I have invested in these properties
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Oct 29, 2018 1:05:02 GMT
I have invested in these properties Would that be when you bought the properties? I have little doubt that LY have been mugged off again due to their naivety and inexperience and I am aware that the borrower has had success in the early rounds in court hence why things have got to where they are . However I think the claim for damages in respect of loss of developer's profit is pie in the sky nonsense,particularly given what has happened in the central London property market over the past couple of years in terms of values, demand and investment levels. Please either disclose your interest in the matter in more specific terms or clear off. I'm sure the forum admins will help you find the door. köszönöm.
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Oct 29, 2018 7:51:17 GMT
Correct. I think they are being deliberately dense.
Seems very odd to try and intimidate people on here using untruths. Perhaps a sign of weakness?
|
|
wuzimu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 735
|
Post by wuzimu on Oct 29, 2018 10:00:05 GMT
Yeah, reading alot of rubbish on this thread the last few days. I can't understand whether Lendy is the claimant or the respondent with a counter-claim in the proceedings at hand, it doesn't really matter.
The nub is the borrower doesn't want to repay or let lendy appt an administrator over the security and the court has doubtless recived a large bundle of arguments...
There is a case management hearing to set out how the matter will proceed and part of that apparently is an application by the borrower for the names of all the lenders as they claim the lenders as well as Lendy are a party with civil liability. The Court does not rule at this stage (or for a long while yet) whether this is correct or form a view on the merits of any parties position, but the Court would want all the parties claimed to be proper participants at the outset as it is not possible to add claimants or defendants once a case has been listed.
Hence the order that the names of lenders be given to the borrower.
For any who wonder if this means that Borrowers arguments have some validity.... Wuzimu says (FWIW)... it does not mean that at all.
The only thing that could land lenders with contingent liability to the borrower for loss of profit is a very explicit loan contract that future funding was guaranteed by every lender participating in the syndicate and maybe a warranty for the borrowers profit would need to be there aswell. I do not believe the contract says any such thing. Even if it did I think the Borrower would have to show that the lenders understood the contract they were entering.... and as lenders never saw the contract...
As one small lender I rest easy on the prospects of the borrowers claim being zero.
I am concerned that Lendy will not be solvent for the life of the claim as it is clearly the Borrowers strategy to string it out as long as possible and Lendy dithering seems to have made this easy.
The security is not held by Lendy of course but by the Trustee company and if Lendy were to cease trading I have no doubt that the claim to enforce the security would be pursued and at some point administrators will be appointed over the London and Essex properties, they will be sold and a portion of the lenders capital will be returned.
Beyond that who knows. Possibly a good chunk of the £8.2m will end up with lawyers and other Court costs,
I hope the Borrower ends up bankrupt for wasting my time thinking about this stupid case.
|
|
jeremy12
Member of DD Central
Everything's frozen
Posts: 83
Likes: 38
|
Post by jeremy12 on Oct 29, 2018 10:08:52 GMT
Yeah, reading alot of rubbish on this thread the last few days. I can't understand whether Lendy is the claimant or the respondent with a counter-claim in the proceedings at hand, it doesn't really matter.
The nub is the borrower doesn't want to repay or let lendy appt an administrator over the security and the court has doubtless recived a large bundle of arguments...
There is a case management hearing to set out how the matter will proceed and part of that apparently is an application by the borrower for the names of all the lenders as they claim the lenders as well as Lendy are a party with civil liability. The Court does not rule at this stage (or for a long while yet) whether this is correct or form a view on the merits of any parties position, but the Court would want all the parties claimed to be proper participants at the outset as it is not possible to add claimants or defendants once a case has been listed.
Hence the order that the names of lenders be given to the borrower.
For any who wonder if this means that Borrowers arguments have some validity.... Wuzimu says (FWIW)... its does not mean that at all.
The only thing that could land lenders with contingent liability to the borrower for loss of profit is a very explicit loan contract that future funding was guaranteed by every lender participating in the syndicate and maybe a warranty for the borrowers profit would need to be there aswell. I do not believe the contract says any such thing. Even if it did I think the Borrower would have to show that the lenders understood the contract they were entering.... and as lenders never saw the contract...
As one small lender I rest easy on the prospects of the borrowers claim being zero.
I am concerned that Lendy will not be solvent for the life of the claim as it is clearly the Borrowers strategy to string it out as long as possible and Lendy dithering seems to have made this easy.
The security is not held by Lendy of course but by the Trustee company and if Lendy were to cease trading I have no doubt that the claim to enforce the security would be pursued and at some point administrators will be appointed over the London and Essex properties, they will be sold and a portion of the lenders capital will be returned.
Beyond that who knows.
This seems to be a very good analysis and explanation based on the information that is available so far. I think all readers of this thread should keep this in mind when they read the variety of comments submitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Oct 29, 2018 10:35:47 GMT
Has anyone told this woman yet that she's just given her name & address to 5000 very unhappy people
|
|
|
|
Post by klib on Oct 29, 2018 11:53:06 GMT
I'm not particularly concerned about the merits of this specific case, but what does concern me is that it has highlighted, at the very least, a lack of clarity regarding the legal liabilities of Lendy investors. I for one am not particularly comfortable about acquiring a joint and several liability for any daft thing that Lendy might do in the future. Does anyone know what the legal status of investors in other platforms is? Is this a P2P problem, or a Lendy specific problem?
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Oct 29, 2018 11:56:38 GMT
I'm not particularly concerned about the merits of this specific case, but what does concern me is that it has highlighted, at the very least, a lack of clarity regarding the legal liabilities of Lendy investors. I for one am not particularly comfortable about acquiring a joint and several liability for any daft thing that Lendy might do in the future. Does anyone know what the legal status of investors in other platforms is? Is this a P2P problem, or a Lendy specific problem? I would think as others have said this is a potentially serious issue for the whole of the P2P sector and as someone else said somewhere all syndicated lending. I can see why the FCA would/should have an interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by petebutt43 on Oct 29, 2018 12:38:55 GMT
<redacted>
I am one of the "investors", but I sincerely (stupidly?) believe in the natural justice of the courts. This is just obfuscation from the
<redacted>, to avoid paying up. Not the first time she has tried something similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Oct 29, 2018 12:39:16 GMT
As one small lender I rest easy on the prospects of the borrowers claim being zero.
That's my strategy too.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Oct 29, 2018 15:36:01 GMT
Today's FT
UK P2P lender looks into selling the loans on its platform
Lendy in talks over deal that would involve selling loanbook at discount to face value
see new thread above from the eagle's other eye
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Oct 29, 2018 20:55:44 GMT
The case has been successful in court so far. The order is available on google I guess you have a reading comprehension issue, buddy. To say the least.
|
|
jeremy12
Member of DD Central
Everything's frozen
Posts: 83
Likes: 38
|
Post by jeremy12 on Oct 30, 2018 20:00:51 GMT
Should we the lenders seek help from the FCA with regards to Lendy's conduct? Clearly it is there for a purpose and is there to protect our interests. Anyone know how the FCA works and what we would need to ask them?
|
|
