sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345 
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Feb 4, 2019 20:59:25 GMT
I take it that all of the posters have read the old T's & C's and understand their rights under those conditions. No, do I have to read it and try and work it out or can you give me some hints? Better still, I expect there is a thread of discussion about it you could point me too, please?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,049
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 4, 2019 21:44:54 GMT
Better still, I can point you in the direction of a partner of a top 100 law firm who specialises in this area and already has a copy of the terms 😉 But what does he charge for looking at them?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 4, 2019 22:25:29 GMT
AFAIK it’s no win, no fee. Which must mean you lose the ability to pull the plug on the action at the point it becomes obvious to you that the only route open to Lendy is to enter voluntary administration. The lawyers have to continue to have any hope of being paid.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 4, 2019 22:27:42 GMT
I strongly recommend people seek their own independent legal advice before signing up to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 4, 2019 23:13:40 GMT
To answer the PM I've just received publicly, yes, I should have indeed disclosed my own involvement in these loans before commenting on this thread.
So, to summarise my position
1. I have c. 10% of my currrent Lendy balance in total in some of these four loans
2. I believe Lendy is in a real mess, and is fighting to try to survive. They could have given up already, but they haven't, and are spending a small fortune attempting to find solutions to the many problems.
3. I believe the outcome across all loans on the loanbook will be significantly better if Lendy remains an operational business
4. I think, given where we are today, it is perhaps best to consider the balance in these four loans to be a quasi equity stake in the survival of the business
5. I am in the larger of the two "London Loans"
6. I do not want to see Lendy forced into administration any time soon
7. I do not want to call in the loans made to Lendy (under the guise of DFL001,DFL002,PBL027,PBL056) any time soon.
8. I see no evidence that these four loans are being treated any differently to any of the other distressed loans on the loanbook. It will take 2 to 5 years to work through the various loans from this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Feb 4, 2019 23:31:07 GMT
To answer the PM I've just received publicly, yes, I should have indeed disclosed my own involvement in these loans before commenting on this thread.
So, to summarise my position
1. I have c. 10% of my currrent Lendy balance in total in some of these four loans
2. I believe Lendy is in a real mess, and is fighting to try to survive. They could have given up already, but they haven't, and are spending a small fortune attempting to find solutions to the many problems.
3. I believe the outcome across all loans on the loanbook will be significantly better if Lendy remains an operational business
4. I think, given where we are today, it is perhaps best to consider the balance in these four loans to be a quasi equity stake in the survival of the business
5. I am in the larger of the two "London Loans"
6. I do not want to see Lendy forced into administration any time soon
7. I do not want to call in the loans made to Lendy (under the guise of DFL001,DFL002,PBL027,PBL056) any time soon.
8. I see no evidence that these four loans are being treated any differently to any of the other distressed loans on the loanbook. It will take 2 to 5 years to work through the various loans from this point.
i couldn't agree more, having spent the last 18 months or so trying to reduce my exposure with lendy, i still have a significant sum tied up in non performing loans, to the point where i am receiving the princely sum of £pittance interest every month for £49k... my (and many others) only chance of recovering any significant capital is if lendy remains solvent and committed to its lenders.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Feb 4, 2019 23:59:52 GMT
To answer the PM I've just received publicly, yes, I should have indeed disclosed my own involvement in these loans before commenting on this thread.
So, to summarise my position
1. I have c. 10% of my currrent Lendy balance in total in some of these four loans
2. I believe Lendy is in a real mess, and is fighting to try to survive. They could have given up already, but they haven't, and are spending a small fortune attempting to find solutions to the many problems.
3. I believe the outcome across all loans on the loanbook will be significantly better if Lendy remains an operational business
4. I think, given where we are today, it is perhaps best to consider the balance in these four loans to be a quasi equity stake in the survival of the business
5. I am in the larger of the two "London Loans"
6. I do not want to see Lendy forced into administration any time soon
7. I do not want to call in the loans made to Lendy (under the guise of DFL001,DFL002,PBL027,PBL056) any time soon.
8. I see no evidence that these four loans are being treated any differently to any of the other distressed loans on the loanbook. It will take 2 to 5 years to work through the various loans from this point.
I think anyone with one scintilla of a brain cell. Would agree with you. Anyone who disagrees has no clue of what a catastrophic mistake it would be to do anything but let Lendy sort this out. As with all loans time will give the answer P2P is the tortoise not the hare of investment.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 5, 2019 0:25:21 GMT
If Lendy was Apple or Google and sitting on a vast piles of cash, then yes I'd agree to go ahead with this action. They're not though and as explained so well by Mr M C an action like this could be the last straw.
My gut tells me if we're patient we are going to get a substantial amount of our capital back if Lendy survives. There is real and verifiable property out there secured by Lendy. If they throw in the towel, we'll get just about nothing. I say lets do what we can to ensure said towel isn't thrown.
|
|
oddis
Posts: 29
Likes: 14
|
Post by oddis on Feb 5, 2019 7:52:45 GMT
To sue Ly and put all other loans in jeopardy? And force Ly into administration? What a stupid idea, in my opinion (I have a small stake in these loans).
mrclondon is correct.
Money brings out the worst in everyone.
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Feb 5, 2019 8:12:52 GMT
My gut feeling is that the end game will be administration anyway. The recent pledge to try and rescue the loan book seems to me to be a bit of hot air, changing administrators is not going to change the underlying situations on certain loans. So from this perspective going into administration ASAP saves wages, but if the COL experience is anything to go by it will be an even more drawn out affair and even more disastrous, because the admins won't mind being given the runaround as they claim even more fees.
Having said that, I believe that administration would give Lendy a credible exit, because they could blame their demise on the lenders, and if not done so already, even more will they run the business for the interests of employees/owners rather than investors. A structure where investors are given a bigger say (not just votes that are ignored) would be welcome - this was supposedly meant to be the loan surgeries where there would be some dialogue, but this never happened (which kind of makes me draw the first conclusion).
I don't believe anyone should pursue this course of action at present, although I think i can understand why people are willing to try. I would think if your money is in distressed loans in here, most of it will be lost by the time the recovery action is complete anyway.
As an aside would people be put off claiming against FS (Whitehaven) and Assetz (I**) loans? The premise is the same, a successful claim could put the company out of business. It shouldn't work this way but there seems no punishments for firms to cut corners.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,025
Likes: 5,152
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 5, 2019 8:18:54 GMT
changing administrators is not going to change the underlying situations on certain loans. Of course not. But it will affect how the "underlying situation" is being handled - which is what people have been complaining about, isn't it? By adding administrators' fees in their place. The difference is that Ly, being FCA approved, have a run-off plan in place for the transfer of the loan book.
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Feb 5, 2019 8:40:34 GMT
Genuinely unsure what will change with regard to different administrators - some of the cases they have been given are very complex with hostilities on the other side. I would have thought that once the instruction was given, administrators would use more or less the same approaches. There isn't a magic wand.
I'm quite pessimistic about how a run-off plan would work in practice.
Lendy quote that 'We administer our loans in a way that ensures the arrangement fees payable in relation to these loan contracts are sufficient to cover the costs of administering them during any winding down process'
I don't believe that this statement takes into account the realities of the situation, and fees earned on some loans will not actually cover the eventual cost of administering them. It does not appear that these monies are segregated, and so Lendy's cash balance is being run down.
The contingency plan is a third party administrator to come in. If that is the case I can't see how it would end up well for investors, basically everything under the 'claims underway' would be lost (I believe Lendy are merely offering the pretence of legals as none of the cases have settled, nor any other details given).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,025
Likes: 5,152
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 5, 2019 8:54:45 GMT
Genuinely unsure what will change with regard to different administrators - some of the cases they have been given are very complex with hostilities on the other side. I would have thought that once the instruction was given, administrators would use more or less the same approaches. Assuming those administrators are competent and efficient...
If personal hostilities ARE in place, to the point that they're preventing sensible discussion on a decent outcome, then changing the administrators may actually be a good way to get those out of the way.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Feb 5, 2019 9:11:50 GMT
AFAIK it’s no win, no fee. My lay understanding is the official term for this is 'a conditional fee agreement'. There are two levels of insurance: the claimant is insured against having to pay any fees in agreement with the solicitor; the solicitor takes out a second tier of insurance against loosing/paying the fees. I imagine that this second tier insurance company would also have to be convinced of the argument, in my lay understanding. I wonder whether it's actually possible to be sure enough - i.e. if there is a point which is open to interpretation.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 5, 2019 9:39:02 GMT
I wonder whether it's actually possible to be sure enough - i.e. if there is a point which is open to interpretation. Good question. The problem with the old T&C's is that they were written long before the concept of property lending became a gleam in SavingStream's eye. Property loans aren't even mentioned, just vehicles, boats and aircraft. Hence why the T&Cs received a comprehensive rewrite soon after property lending kicked off. However, taking a helicopter view of the overall intention of the T&Cs (rather than picking over contradictory clauses in isolation) it seems pretty clear. "Investors" are presented with the opportunity to invest in loans, which in turn are secured on the borrowers' assets. If the borrowers keep up payments then the investors receive a fixed rate of interest during the term and their capital back at the end. If the borrowers don't, then the asset is to be sold and resulting funds distributed (capital first, then SavingStream fees, then interest). SavingStream's liability "on any basis whatsoever shall not exceed the total amount of revenue earned by Saving Stream in respect of transactions entered into" (the second half of clause 12.3 is redundant since no "Specified Tolerance" was ever defined for property). But the bigger question in my mind is, even if a court could be persuaded that lenders instead were actually lending money to SavingStream themselves, and that SavingStream (now Lendy) themselves are therefore liable for repayment of these sums in full (regardless of the status of the underlying loans that were funded), what would this actually achieve? Surely lenders would have succeeded in proving they are in fact unsecured creditors of Lendy, not secured creditors of the borrowers. But does this make it more or less likely that lenders will be repaid their money? If Lendy ends up in administration / receivership (the inevitable consequence of such a ruling), I rather suspect the prospects for unsecured creditors would be poor.
|
|
