shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Feb 14, 2019 12:06:58 GMT
From a vote conducted by AC
Voting for this option (to appoint LPA receivers) also empowers Assetz to accept any recommendations by the Administrators, including sales, without conducting a further lender vote. This is due to rejection of such recommendations could lead to all lenders involved in this loan being deemed mortgagee-in-possession and liable for the properties including costs and legal challenges.
Lacking a bit of grammar, but it appears to mean if we subsequently voted against the LPA receiver's advice we might be on the hook (especially if the final outcome is worse). So is it always thus?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 14, 2019 12:34:16 GMT
From a vote conducted by AC
Voting for this option (to appoint LPA receivers) also empowers Assetz to accept any recommendations by the Administrators, including sales, without conducting a further lender vote. This is due to rejection of such recommendations could lead to all lenders involved in this loan being deemed mortgagee-in-possession and liable for the properties including costs and legal challenges.
Lacking a bit of grammar, but it appears to mean if we subsequently voted against the LPA receiver's advice we might be on the hook (especially if the final outcome is worse). So is it always thus?
I believe so.
AIUI the issue arose in relation to an earlier loan (Anglesey?) when lenders initially rejected the IPs advice on way to proceed. Given the IP legal responsibilities to ensure best possible outcome for all parties, rejecting their advice meant that they were not able to fulfill their obligations and would have had to resign the appointment. AC would have either had to find a replacement (difficult I suppose in the circumstances) or have taken on the role themselves as MiP with all associated costs & liabilities normally born by the IP but presumably without the support network an established IP has so at potentially higher cost/risk and no real experience (no AH anymore either). Hence AC added the clause to say they werent going to accept such risk on behalf of lenders so lender discretion would be removed if IP appointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by rollercoaster on Feb 18, 2019 17:38:33 GMT
Interesting, thanks for that info. It raised two questions in my mind: - Where there isn't a lender / member voting option then if that platform appoints a receiver then they really need to follow that advice! Has there been many scenarios where a platform has gone contrary to receiver's advice?
- This will explain a lot of can-kicking down the road. Allows the platform and borrower to come to agreements. So reading the small print Ts and Cs about what constitutes a default and what the platform has agreed to do when a default occurs is very important.
|
|
