sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Oct 18, 2021 10:05:25 GMT
what the hell is happening here ! This new holder has been subjected to several applications for compulsory strike off etc etc- we have been down this path before! The administrators are completely out of control. Remember they are acting for the creditors NOT lenders, even though the lenders are having to pay their wages. Yes we are 2nd charge for some of the money lent and that money went straight into the borrowers pockets, with no monitoring of the development. The T8 lender is also very unhappy with the actions of the administrators, and has complained to the IP, but they've taken no action to date. The FCA are ultimately to blame for the total mess, they should never have authorised FS to be put into administration, without a coherent winddown plan.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 18, 2021 19:11:28 GMT
Had another quick look at this one - the later charge and FS one refer to the same title with the later one giving warrandice to FS - not sure exactly what this means in practice.
I think : this was done by one of the D****'s so where the hell has the money gone? why the hell did FS administrators agree to this? looks to me as if this was done just before they were made bust?
I may be wrong here but what a mess!
|
|
|
Post by richardw on Oct 19, 2021 7:32:20 GMT
'Warrandice' ensures a contract is valid under Scots law as well as English.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 19, 2021 8:52:07 GMT
thanks - reading the charge it looks to me as if there are now 3 charges on this development - well I presume somebody has the first charge and somebody the second one it talks about warrandice over the FS part - this is what is confusing me - has the new chargeholder now become a prime charge holder and FS secondary or what
Or to put another way I just don't understand what is actually happening here!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,894
Likes: 11,115
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 19, 2021 9:16:44 GMT
thanks - reading the charge it looks to me as if there are now 3 charges on this development - well I presume somebody has the first charge and somebody the second one it talks about warrandice over the FS part - this is what is confusing me - has the new chargeholder now become a prime charge holder and FS secondary or what Or to put another way I just don't understand what is actually happening here! The administrators don't appear to think so. Subject to confirmation, they think FS has first charge & the men's magazine second. Warrandice is a guarantee by the charge granter to the recipient that they will work to protect their rights and as it is granted subject to the FS charges that indicates they rank first as the limit the extent of the warranty. The original first charge seems to have been settled several years ago, with an FS charge accidentally being marked settled as well. Anyway that's my reading of all the info available. As to why only £2m ...?
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 2,454
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 22, 2021 17:39:20 GMT
So we have become 2nd charge holders. I don't think that's the case. The Administrators Proposal document states (App III, Sect1.2) : " Fundingsecure Ltd, as first ranking charge holder and petitioner, ... "
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 2,454
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 22, 2021 17:39:35 GMT
I agree it should fetch more than the 'offers over' price of £2m but with £3.2m of lenders' capital outstanding on this, will it fetch in excess of 50% more? (Almost a moot point but lenders' interest currently sits at around £940k and is increasing by a little over £1k per day) Of little importance to lenders in this loan (in terms of the absolute some owed to FS and getting back what they - the Lenders - are owed given the Waterfall arrangements) but I note that FundingSecure are listed as Secured Creditors to the tune £4,247,989 in the Administrators Proposal from 01.10.21
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 2,454
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 22, 2021 17:42:55 GMT
lloks to me that in 2019 the D**** brothers (interesting name) had a total of £868.5K in director loans - and now they are bust - well I wonder how much of that money we will see - I guess zero! A subsequent post from richardw has prompted me to revisit this. I think adrian77 is incorrect on two counts: 1) The £868.5k figure appears to have been arrived at by taking two figures from the latest accounts: L******* H**** Ltd Year ended 31 December 2019 Notes to the financial statements 1. Employee numbers The average number of persons employed by the company during the year amounted to 6 (2018: 6).
2. Directors advances, credits and guarantees During the year the directors entered into the following advances and credits with the company: 2019
Balance Advances Amounts Balance brought /(credits) to repaid o/standing forward the directors £ £ £ £ S**** D*** (380,095) (205,933) 97,500 (488,528) ======== ======== ======= ======== 2018 Balance Advances Amounts Balance brought /(credits) to repaid o/standing forward the directors £ £ £ £ S**** D*** (540,890) 167,795 - (380,095) ======== ======== ======= ========
It appears the two displayed 'Balance o/standing' figures have been approximately added together, ie: £488.5k + £380k = £868.5k which is, of course, incorrect. That '£380k' figure is the balance as at 31.12.18 and was brought forward into 2019. The balance as the year end being reported is £488.5k, not £868.5k. 2) The outstanding sum reported is the amount owed to the Director. 'Advances' - which are denoted without parentheses - are monies made over by the Company to the named individual and are therefore owed by the individual to the company. 'Credits' - which are denoted with parentheses - are sums heading in the other direction: in this case, from the Director to the Company. The financial year ending 31.12.19 saw the Company owe the Director c. £380k at the beginning of the financial year and, during the year at some point, make a payment back to the Director for roughly £98k and also saw that Director put a further c. £206k into the Company during the financial year. End result is that, as at 31.12.19, the Company owed the Director £488.5k. Interesting one to follow - tbh the director loans really worry me - no idea how the Scots would deal with this. Hopefully they worry you a little less now
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 23, 2021 15:27:07 GMT
The balance as the year end being reported is £488.5k, not £868.5k.
correct my error - I misread it as 2 brothers
Given we don't yet have 2020 accounts and besides they aren't audited I am not exactly less worried and as you say they owe FS over £4.2m and rising!
If this advance went to buy W*******d Farm as looks very likely to me and the excellent MrC then we are in a pickle...
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 2,454
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 23, 2021 19:12:27 GMT
If this advance went to buy W*******d Farm as looks very likely to me and the excellent MrC then we are in a pickle... Apologies for starting to sound like a broken record but I think you may have once again gotten the wrong end of the stick. To the opening post of this thread, " the excellent MrC" added (my emphasis): So, it seems to me - and forgive me if I have this wrong - but you've mistakenly got the monies traveling in the wrong direction, again. For info, the original Wood**** Farm loan was taken out in Sep '16 and the farmland / development plot there was used as security against that loan. The earliest Lad****k loan was Dec '18 so it really is quite hard to monies received on the Lad****k loan " went to buy W******d Farm" as you stated above. What might be of interest to Lenders in this loan is if there is any kind of cross-collateralisation - either through an explicit arrangement or an implicit guarantee - between this Lady**** loan and the Wood**** Farm loan. That farm loan is (by FS' determination) a c. £500k loan against a £1.5m asset. Sure the farm loan has a bunch of accrued interest - £160k worth by fag-packet calcs - but even if that valuation was subject to the usual degree of RICS ... errrr ... let's call it 'borrower generosity' then, 5 years on, there must surely be a decent amount of meat and fat on the bone which, on asset disposal, could mean any excess sees its way to the Lady**** Lenders if any such cross-collateralisation is in place.
|
|
|
Post by richardw on Jan 5, 2022 14:58:01 GMT
I see this is now under offer through CCL. No idea on price yet though.
|
|
morris
Member of DD Central
Posts: 261
Likes: 149
|
Post by morris on Mar 26, 2022 15:33:37 GMT
The prospective buyers of this part complete property will move onto a bridging/purchase facility on CP this coming week.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Mar 26, 2022 20:03:14 GMT
The prospective buyers of this part complete property will move onto a bridging/purchase facility on CP this coming week.
Surely this is not the Dundee loan which has had almost as many appearances as Homes under the Hammer. Not even in the same county ?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,894
Likes: 11,115
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 11, 2022 11:41:13 GMT
CP facility referred to above now viewable on CP & launching tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by richardw on Jul 29, 2022 15:22:47 GMT
The agents wont say & CG apparently don't want us to know how much this eventually sold for. Seems like secrecy gone mad for what will shortly be open source info at the Land Registry. Does anyone know ps ?
|
|