|
|
Post by brightspark on Jul 24, 2019 13:22:06 GMT
Zib. The practices to which you refer were in full swing whilst Lendy was not fully FCA regulated. The concern must be that the journey from interim to full Regulation took 2 years presenting a one-off inappropriate lending opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 24, 2019 13:34:59 GMT
I've been jumping from site to site..I may have missed something. Have RSM said when we can expect anything back.,HQ etc..and who gets the interest on anything in the bank ? Despite hints from RSM, it’s been suggested by an IP that interim distributions can only take place once the company is in liquidation and that doesn’t happen until a year after entering administration so at least ten months away. Are you sure ?
A statutory purpose of administration is to allow the company to continue trading under the guidance of the administrators. Running down the loan book would seem to me to represent a continuation of trading.
billy169 - HQ can not be distributed to lenders until an agreement has been reached between RSM and the new independent administrator of the security trustee company with regard to the deduction of fees from the redemption proceeds. This may take some time (months ?). However, there are funds from a Cornwall (partial ?) redemption that are intended to be distributed in full according to the administrators proposals document (" the entirety of which is to be returned to the relevant Investors. Further detail regarding loan repayments will be communicated to those Investors in due course"), and so may be added to account balances sooner rather than later. However note that at present RSM do not have authority to return cash to lenders (" Before the Joint Administrators release any funds to Investors they are required to ensure compliance with appropriate AML legislation. An initial review of the Company's existing AML and client take-on procedures has noted certain deficiencies that have required further investigation. These are ongoing, with legal advice being obtained")
However, for clarity my understanding is any redemption proceeds from the model 1 loans which are assumed to be unsecured debts against Lendy will indeed not be distributed at this stage. I suspect the comments from the IP you have picked up on refer soley to the four model 1 loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 24, 2019 13:46:17 GMT
Looks like I'll be heading for a divorce...oh well,,every cloud.
|
|
|
|
Post by idob on Jul 24, 2019 14:27:54 GMT
I have only just found this forum, and it's great to at least be on touch with others who have invested at Lendy. I have around £3k with them and am trying to get my head round the letter dated 15 July and the appendices with it. I really do not want to get involved in a creditors committee, though hope that some other people will, as from my very limited understanding of the whole affair, it seems the administrators are charging absolutely eye-watering amounts of money for their services, already taking £0.5m over 6 weeks of work. This might be entirely reasonable, I cannot judge.
There is also a proxy form and a proof of debt form they ask to be returned. I am interested to hear from others what their voting instructions are, as I have no idea what the consequences might be of voting against any of their proposals. For example, I would be tempted to vote againt 3, 4, and 5.
Also, why do they need a proof of debt form, given they have full access to the database and all the information is still available on the Lendy platform?
Is there any mileage in getting together for a collective action supported by a lawyer?
Any pointers much appreciated. Apologies if all this has already been extensively discussed in other posts.
Best wishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay2 on Jul 24, 2019 14:36:05 GMT
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334 
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 24, 2019 15:13:33 GMT
Updates on site
|
|
|
|
Post by idob on Jul 24, 2019 15:20:14 GMT
done thanks, didn't know about this or about the FB page, much appreciate everyone's efforts!
|
|
|
|
Post by mot on Jul 24, 2019 15:54:30 GMT
Looks like I'll be heading for a divorce...oh well,,every cloud. RMS 8th July .... HQ to be repaid “shortly” then....... Customer Support (Lendy Ltd) Jul 23, 12:21 BST Dear Mr Just as wound up and stressed that his £Xk is still in some account that the administration is checking out now!!! Jeeeez.....The four of them could of personally finished the build of this blinking Tower by now !!!!!! Anyway, rant over.... Thank you for contacting Lendy.restructuring@rsmuk.com. As you may be aware, Lendy Limited was made subject to an asset restriction by the FCA, which has meant that payments from Lendy's bank account have been restricted and no payments will be released, this includes any funds from the sale of security properties such as DFL012 and withdrawals. Before the Joint Administrators can release funds to investors they are required to ensure compliance with appropriate AML legislation which they are presently doing. I would like to bring to your attention the RSM updates (on http://www.lendy.co.uk) which provide more information on this subject. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Kind regards, The Lendy Customer Support Team Lendy Limited (In Administration) Lendy e: support@lendy.co.uk w: www.lendy.co.uk
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 24, 2019 19:27:02 GMT
Indeed. I think the vast majority of people got "stuck" once it had fully dawned upon them what they had gotten into. It only takes a few minutes browsing through the LAG Facebook group to see just how many retail investors have overextended themselves or invested their life savings/pension assuming that it was safe due to being "secured on property with a maximum LTV of 70%" <snip DI quote I very much agree with> Was this product really suitable for retail investors at all one might ask? Are retail investors able to adequately assess and price the risks of complex development loans on a platform that was a "lender of last resort" to many borrowers paying 30% interest rates? My answer based on my own experience is NO. I personally didn't suffer near as much as those you've described because I've committed a limited amount to these loans, but I did fall under the spell of "property secured" and "LTV" wands. I first have to blame myself for entering this area, but I also question whether FCA were/are competent enough to regulate rapidly growing p2p industry.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Jul 24, 2019 21:08:22 GMT
Indeed. I think the vast majority of people got "stuck" once it had fully dawned upon them what they had gotten into. It only takes a few minutes browsing through the LAG Facebook group to see just how many retail investors have overextended themselves or invested their life savings/pension assuming that it was safe due to being "secured on property with a maximum LTV of 70%" <snip DI quote I very much agree with> Was this product really suitable for retail investors at all one might ask? Are retail investors able to adequately assess and price the risks of complex development loans on a platform that was a "lender of last resort" to many borrowers paying 30% interest rates? My answer based on my own experience is NO. I personally didn't suffer near as much as those you've described because I've committed a limited amount to these loans, but I did fall under the spell of "property secured" and "LTV" wands. I first have to blame myself for entering this area, but I also question whether FCA were/are competent enough to regulate rapidly growing p2p industry. but why blame yourself? You read it all and it made sense, yes? Are we saying here that the product shouldn't have been offered??
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 24, 2019 22:04:52 GMT
My answer based on my own experience is NO. I personally didn't suffer near as much as those you've described because I've committed a limited amount to these loans, but I did fall under the spell of "property secured" and "LTV" wands. I first have to blame myself for entering this area, but I also question whether FCA were/are competent enough to regulate rapidly growing p2p industry. but why blame yourself? You read it all and it made sense, yes? Are we saying here that the product shouldn't have been offered?? Because I've made wrong choices. Yes, some information was misleading, but it was my voluntary decision to invest in these loans. I don't think it should have been offered, but it was offered and there was nothing illegal in their offering.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 25, 2019 0:24:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Jul 25, 2019 2:13:37 GMT
but why blame yourself? You read it all and it made sense, yes? Are we saying here that the product shouldn't have been offered?? Because I've made wrong choices. Yes, some information was misleading, but it was my voluntary decision to invest in these loans. I don't think it should have been offered, but it was offered and there was nothing illegal in their offering. this whole situation stems from the 'light touch' regulation of P2P lending by the FCA. without the FCA interim permissions none of this could have happened. you are basically saying here that the FCA can legitimately hide behind "your capital is at risk" without any consideration for who is being placed at risk. this is hardly a responsible attitude to take. and you can see that realisation reflected in the way the FCA are belatedly trying to regulate P2P lending better. yes, we made 'wrong' choices but we should have been better protected from having had those choices in the first place. we simply could not have know the true risk associated with those choices when lendy were permitted to mislead us about them. put bluntly, that this was not illegal doesn't exonerate those that framed that legality, especially when they should have known far better. this was like letting children play with matches. the FCA simply didn't care that they 'could', or indeed 'would', get burnt. the FCA allowed this situation to happen. and that is precisely why lord myners is calling for an independent investigation of the FCA's handling of lendy. we have bodies such as the FCA precisely because they are supposed to be effective at preventing such situations.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 14:10:30 GMT
The update section about Withdrawals and Available Funds is pretty outrrageous in my opinion. RSM's role is to wind down the loans and repay as much to everyone as possible, not start identifying "deficiencies in AML practices" that then involve them hiring even more expensive lawyers and not giving us access to our funds until 1st October. Lendy were FCA authorised and no one worried about their AML checks when they were in business.
|
|
|
|
Post by marek63 on Jul 26, 2019 14:20:46 GMT
Once you have bern involved in an administration you realise that administrators are in the game to make money. Partner rates at 300-500 per hour. And to keep as many lawyers involved to maximise their administrative returns
|
|
