|
Post by nooneere on Feb 12, 2020 18:04:45 GMT
He hasn't really caused any damage at all. Loans are being snapped up as soon as they are released as has always been the case due to the high demand and generally small size. There has been no disruption to the operations of the platform. He has caused financial damage to the platform in the form of extra legal costs incurred by Unbolted but has been ordered to pay these back. Its basically been a completely failed attempt to get out of paying his loans back. He hasn't totally failed yet - appeals sometimes succeed. And the issue is that if the appeal succeeds he can sue each one of us individually for everything as we are jointly and severally responsible for each loan. As he says in the papers, he will threaten to make every lender bankrupt and have to sell their house. That's why if the appeal succeeds lenders will need to club together to represent our interests (aka class action). The above may not be likely, but it is still a distinct possibility. So I think damage is still being done unless and until the appeal fails. He does NOT threaten to make every lender bankrupt in the court judgment - the judge quoted his letter to UB in order to admonish him, and made him retract the threat in court. People need to have more faith in the court system - it is not a game of "gotcha!". Chief Master M**** comes across to me as extremely sensible and impressive. The courts can see through this individual. The borrower said he wanted the contact details nevertheless in case UB go out of business so that he has no one to claim his damages against. So let's say he wins his appeal and doesn't keep his word or UB go out of business - we get sued for how much? UB's legal team offered the court a bond of £25K as their estimate of the upper limit of possible damages. There are 612 lenders. £25K divided by 612 = £40.85 each. Bankruptcy?? Sell your house?? And who says this character is capable of winning such a landmark case against retail investors if it came to it? Personally I have been continuing to invest with UB, adding funds for the Warhol artwork, the classic luxury car and above all the auction house. I don't deny the court case brings a risk, but for me the only real risk is platform failure due to the financial burden of the legal costs. I am beginning to think this borrower is incapable of meeting the court order to pay UB's costs and is on course to declare himself bankrupt yet again.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 12, 2020 18:21:31 GMT
He hasn't totally failed yet - appeals sometimes succeed. And the issue is that if the appeal succeeds he can sue each one of us individually for everything as we are jointly and severally responsible for each loan. As he says in the papers, he will threaten to make every lender bankrupt and have to sell their house. That's why if the appeal succeeds lenders will need to club together to represent our interests (aka class action). The above may not be likely, but it is still a distinct possibility. So I think damage is still being done unless and until the appeal fails. He does NOT threaten to make every lender bankrupt in the court judgment - the judge quoted his letter to UB in order to admonish him, and made him retract the threat in court. People need to have more faith in the court system - it is not a game of "gotcha!". Chief Master M**** comes across to me as extremely sensible and impressive. The courts can see through this individual. The borrower said he wanted the contact details nevertheless in case UB go out of business so that he has no one to claim his damages against. So let's say he wins his appeal and doesn't keep his word or UB go out of business - we get sued for how much? UB's legal team offered the court a bond of £25K as their estimate of the upper limit of possible damages. There are 612 lenders. £25K divided by 612 = £40.85 each. Bankruptcy?? Sell your house?? And who says this character is capable of winning such a landmark case against retail investors if it came to it? Personally I have been continuing to invest with UB, adding funds for the Warhol artwork, the classic luxury car and above all the auction house. I don't deny the court case brings a risk, but for me the only real risk is platform failure due to the financial burden of the legal costs. I am beginning to think this borrower is incapable of meeting the court order to pay UB's costs and is on course to declare himself bankrupt yet again. Platform failure is indeed a risk - and is one of the aims of the claimant, along with the threats of repossession of small lender(s)'s house(s). And the cost of damages isn't the only risk - legal costs are too (and would be many multiples higher). Ours and his if he were to win. And given the way the loan agreements are structured my understanding is that it is not impossible that he can load it all onto the most solvent individuals. The Court doesn't like his tone, but stops short of saying he is wrong about the contracts. All I am saying is that these additional (unquantifiable) risks have led me to stop investing in new loans. Once those risks are gone, the risk/reward ratio is adequate for me again and I am back. Others may legitimately make other decisions based on the information.
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Feb 12, 2020 18:36:14 GMT
IFISAcava there is NO WAY a court would allow him to load everything onto the most solvent individuals, this is fantasy.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 12, 2020 18:53:47 GMT
IFISAcava there is NO WAY a court would allow him to load everything onto the most solvent individuals, this is fantasy. Glad to hear it - I am not a lawyer! Still don't fancy my share of the legal fees defending it if/when he tries though.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Feb 12, 2020 19:00:06 GMT
IFISAcava there is NO WAY a court would allow him to load everything onto the most solvent individuals, this is fantasy. Glad to hear it - I am not a lawyer! Still don't fancy my share of the legal fees defending it if/when he tries though. That's the nub of it for me. To fully understand the risks associated with this action you really need to have dealt with these kind of cases previously. I'm no barrister or solicitor and I always go by the mantra don't invest in what you don't understand. That's not to say I respect the opinions of those on here, thanks for enlightening us nooneere
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 435
|
Post by nyneil on Feb 12, 2020 19:08:48 GMT
In para 25. of Chief Master M*'s judgement in Sept 2019: Quote: The individual lenders, if they are to be liable, can only be liable by virtue of the acts or omissions of the defendant. Thus, if they are joined as individuals by virtue of a representation order, or as named individuals, plainly they will have a right over, as against the platform, for what it has done in their name. There is really very limited benefit in naming individuals and, in light of the fact that there is a common claim, there is a sufficiently common interest, as between the defendant and the lenders, to enable the defendant to act as a representative party.
My bold
Has this now been demoted / overturned?
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Feb 12, 2020 19:46:34 GMT
I am a great believer in "worst-case" calculations, so to round this off - we know UB's costs for the court case were £42.5K. That divided by 612 = £69.44. Meanwhile the Lendy Action Group Legal Fund on Crowdjustice have raised £59.4K, with donations of that magnitude.
So I don't think anyone is going to lose their home even if we got dragged in to the legals.
And in case people are getting worried by this discussion, let's make clear that UB's lawyers are fighting the case, and there is no sign the platform is going to go out of business.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 12, 2020 22:42:32 GMT
I am a great believer in "worst-case" calculations, so to round this off - we know UB's costs for the court case were £42.5K. That divided by 612 = £69.44. Meanwhile the Lendy Action Group Legal Fund on Crowdjustice have raised £59.4K, with donations of that magnitude. So I don't think anyone is going to lose their home even if we got dragged in to the legals. And in case people are getting worried by this discussion, let's make clear that UB's lawyers are fighting the case, and there is no sign the platform is going to go out of business. I do tend to agree with you. Moreover and particularly for consumers, how could it be that depositing funds into an FCA approved/regulated company could expose said consumer to being sued ? It just seems too incredible. That said, if the 612 are joint and severally liable (which we're not of course) doesn't the law as it stands allow the creditor to pick on anyone for any reason and issue a legal Claim against them ? Perhaps he'd pick on the poorest just to ruin them and worry the p2p industry even more for example. He could do what he wants in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by failedtheturingtest on Feb 13, 2020 7:06:57 GMT
I do tend to agree with you. Moreover and particularly for consumers, how could it be that depositing funds into an FCA approved/regulated company could expose said consumer to being sued ? It just seems too incredible. This is what I would like to understand, too. Does anyone know what supposed wrongdoing is he actually alleging? I've read the September judgement on Casemine (thanks, nooneere !) so I know that he has vaguely alleged breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, the Financial Services and Markets Act, and the Consumer Credit Act, but I don't know what exactly he is protesting against. How could it be even vaguely possible for him to construct an argument under which lenders could be even theoretically liable? Has he not yet revealed his reasoning? Or does he not have a line of reasoning at all and is he just blustering to try to scare lenders?
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Feb 13, 2020 7:59:49 GMT
No he couldn't pick on individual lenders - the courts implement justice and this is laughable. There is an array of laws to which the courts make reference, it is not just a matter of allowing vindictive interpretation of contracts.
|
|
Ukmikk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 445
Likes: 298
|
Post by Ukmikk on Feb 13, 2020 9:29:18 GMT
No he couldn't pick on individual lenders - the courts implement justice and this is laughable. There is an array of laws to which the courts make reference, it is not just a matter of allowing vindictive interpretation of contracts. Your faith in the justice system is admirable, although I can't say I share it. I guess we really don't know how this will end with any certainty until the proverbial large lady has sung.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,211
Likes: 6,017
|
Post by registerme on Feb 13, 2020 9:52:05 GMT
The biggest risk here, at the moment, is that "the law really can be an ass". It might not be though. And what we've seen so far reassures me in as much as the "law" seems to be doing its best not to be an ass. It's not an impossible outcome though.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 15, 2020 14:48:37 GMT
Is there any estimate as to what the indicative timeframe is for this case to be finally settled (one way or the other)?
|
|
|
Post by failedtheturingtest on Feb 15, 2020 16:41:02 GMT
I don't think anyone can predict when it will finally be settled. I believe the next step is that our dear friend gets to have another go at trying to obtain information about the lenders at a hearing which will take place between 10-13 March. If his request is granted, then we'll no doubt be hearing plenty from him. If his request is again denied, then it's anyone's guess whether he will press on with the case.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Feb 16, 2020 14:32:38 GMT
He has NO choice, this anushole is up to his mammaries in it now, it's gone too far, and he HAS to fight it to the very, VERY bitter end.
tbh I think he gets some sort of perverse joy out of playing/gaming the system, let's hope Judgy & Co have other ideas.
|
|