rrrupert
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121 
Likes: 99
|
Post by rrrupert on Jul 15, 2019 17:07:47 GMT
"Should you wish to vote on the Proposals please complete and return the Proof of Debt form and Proxy form (if
applicable), in accordance with the instructions set out in the attached notice"
Taken from the latest email. I believe proof of debt form is just if you wish to vote at the creditors meeting.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Jul 15, 2019 17:09:58 GMT
You can only vote at the creditors meeting (or be on the creditors committee) if you are a creditor.
The question is are lenders a creditor of the company in administration, my belief is that they are not?
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 15, 2019 17:11:13 GMT
Just read same email,,, I'm a retired builder,,out of my depth,,I can't be alone !!
|
|
|
|
Post by gramsky on Jul 15, 2019 17:36:14 GMT
Just received the 15th July 2019 letter from the administrators. I am unclear are lenders required to submit proof of debt forms? My understanding is that lenders are not creditors of Lendy (insolvent company) but are creditors of the individual borrowers in each case so are not creditors who need to submit a proof of debt form. Is this what we were expecting to be issued on 19 July? I think that " outstanding uncapitalised interest" in item 3 on the 'Proof of debt form' could indicate that we are classed as creditors.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jul 15, 2019 17:38:59 GMT
You can only vote at the creditors meeting (or be on the creditors committee) if you are a creditor. The question is are lenders a creditor of the company in administration, my belief is that they are not? It would appear that RSM may be treating all investors as contingent creditors from the outset of the administration. This would allow investors to claim against the secured assets held via their agency agreement in the first instance but also have an additional secondary claim against Lendy itself. The extent of the liability owed by Lendy to each investor would not yet be known. The usual way a contingent liability is dealt with is to award all lenders an initial nominal £1 claim in the first instance which can be amended as more information regarding individual claims comes to light.
|
|
thedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 111
|
Post by thedog on Jul 15, 2019 17:44:58 GMT
Has anyone yet been able to access the RSM Proposals at the web address given in the first paragraph of the letter? I'm getting an error message but could be volume of traffic or just that they've not posted it yet.
Once we can see that we will have a clearer idea of how RSM are proposing to treat Investors - probably in line with Monetus's post given that he's had contact with them through LAG.
|
|
nsinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 110
|
Post by nsinvestor on Jul 15, 2019 17:47:12 GMT
I can access the RSM portal but no documents have been uploaded to it yet
|
|
|
|
Post by empyrean on Jul 15, 2019 17:47:58 GMT
Has anyone yet been able to access the RSM Proposals at the web address given in the first paragraph of the letter? I'm getting an error message but could be volume of traffic or just that they've not posted it yet.
I've been able to register using the details in the letter, but the portal just says 'No documents have been added for this case yet.' The letter itself states that 'associated documentation will be uploaded to our website later today in accordance with the provisions of the the relevant legislation', so I guess we can expect them to appear within the next couple of hours.
|
|
jhma
Member of DD Central
Posts: 82
Likes: 53
|
Post by jhma on Jul 15, 2019 17:48:27 GMT
Likewise
|
|
|
|
Post by gramsky on Jul 15, 2019 18:03:42 GMT
Has anyone yet been able to access the RSM Proposals at the web address given in the first paragraph of the letter? I'm getting an error message but could be volume of traffic or just that they've not posted it yet.
Once we can see that we will have a clearer idea of how RSM are proposing to treat Investors - probably in line with Monetus's post given that he's had contact with them through LAG.
The problem is if you cut & paste the URL from the downloaded PDF into the Internet address bar it copies to https:llrsm.insolvencypoint.com, should be 'https://rsm.insolvencypoint.com'. Change ll to // and it works.
|
|
thedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 111
|
Post by thedog on Jul 15, 2019 18:09:35 GMT
cheers - thought that looked odd... got it now! Thanks
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Jul 15, 2019 18:27:33 GMT
The proposals are now on the RSM website portal.
|
|
|
|
Post by empyrean on Jul 15, 2019 18:49:28 GMT
This is just incredible — the 'how the bed was s**t' section, which is apparently compiled from the told tales of Liam Brooke, reads as though the failure of Lendy is being blamed on a small sub-section of duplicitous investors (and seemingly some creditors!) spreading misinformation on internet message boards (presumably here) and on review sites (presumably Trust Pilot).
Even now the whole edifice has finally crashed and burned, and its architects have abdicated without trace, the man is still incapable of accepting any responsibility for the debacle.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,024
Likes: 5,150
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 15, 2019 18:57:05 GMT
This is just incredible — the 'how the bed was s**t' section, which is apparently compiled from the told tales of Liam Brooke, reads as though the failure of Lendy is being blamed on a small sub-section of duplicitous investors (and seemingly some creditors!) spreading misinformation on internet message boards (presumably here) and on review sites (presumably Trust Pilot). Even now the whole edifice has finally crashed and burned, and its architects have abdicated without trace, the man is still incapable of accepting any responsibility for the debacle. That's not how I'm reading it at all. 2.1 - "Background" simply documents the timeline, and has clearly been drawn up from concrete information, not just word-of-mouth. I presume that's the section you're referring to? Look into that in more detail... 2.1.7 shows the first hint of negativity - too much reliance on retail investment, and an inability of the directors to source institutional money. 2.1.8 seems very clear that the "underperforming loans" were the cause of the problem, leading to the loss of confidence and reduction in incoming investment. 2.1.9 seems very clear that the reduction in investment volume was what led to problems with developments, and an increase in non-performing loans. 2.1.11 seems very clear that the "public comment" was a demonstration of how investor confidence was being eroded, not the cause. 2.1.12-13 seems very clear that the continued reduction in investment was what killed the business's viability. It all reads to me as a very dispassionate and factual account that accords well with my recollections.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 15, 2019 18:59:29 GMT
All I saw was that we may get an average of 50% ish back,,am I wrong.!?
|
|
