tombraider
Member of DD Central
Posts: 117 
Likes: 103
|
Post by tombraider on Jul 26, 2019 14:23:52 GMT
So having read the update DFL 1 and 2 are different models..... Is it better to be invested in a model 1 loan as a creditor or model 2 investor. I thought these were both model 1 yet another thing I was wrong about...
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 14:27:31 GMT
So having read the update DFL 1 and 2 are different models..... Is it better to be invested in a model 1 loan as a creditor or model 2 investor. I thought these were both model 1 yet another thing I was wrong about... I think creditor is worse as Lendy likely has all sorts of creditors not just people who bought loan parts.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 14:28:49 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 Yes it's a clear indication they're going to milk it for all it's worth.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 26, 2019 14:33:02 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. Unfortunately for us lenders, if RSM believe that tainted funds [possible ML funds] were co-mingled with the clean lenders account, then then entire lenders/client bank account has to be effectively gone through with a fine tooth comb. " Lendy were FCA authorised and no one worried about their AML checks when they were in business" <- Clearly they had a more important agenda on their mind, most likely LB salary and perks to keep topped up, rather than where the funds might be originating from.
|
|
tombraider
Member of DD Central
Posts: 117
Likes: 103
|
Post by tombraider on Jul 26, 2019 14:36:05 GMT
So having read the update DFL 1 and 2 are different models..... Is it better to be invested in a model 1 loan as a creditor or model 2 investor. I thought these were both model 1 yet another thing I was wrong about... I think creditor is worse as Lendy likely has all sorts of creditors not just people who bought loan parts. The more I look at this the worse it gets the arboretum loan looks like a 10% return DFL1 could well be the dreaded 7p in the pound return. It looks to me like the only way I’ll even get half back Is if FCA compensation happens
|
|
|
|
Post by meyerlansky on Jul 26, 2019 14:45:04 GMT
As a lendy wealth investorcreditor still have no information at all about my money.
|
|
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 26, 2019 14:55:02 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. Unfortunately, just because Lendy were cavalier in following legal procedures, doesnt mean that RSM can be. They have there own licences, permissions and reputation to consider.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 14:55:45 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. Unfortunately for us lenders, if RSM believe that tainted funds [possible ML funds] were co-mingled with the clean lenders account, then then entire lenders/client bank account has to be effectively gone through with a fine tooth comb. " Lendy were FCA authorised and no one worried about their AML checks when they were in business" <- Clearly they had a more important agenda on their mind, most likely LB salary and perks to keep topped up, rather than where the funds might be originating from. The administrators just need to wind down the loan book as cheaply as possible.
FCA were responsible for AML supervision:
1.5 The Government created the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS) as part of a wider package of government reforms to strengthen the UK's AML and CTF regime. We are housed within the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and became operational on 1 February 2018.1 Mar 2019
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 14:58:00 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. Unfortunately, just because Lendy were cavalier in following legal procedures, doesnt mean that RSM can be. They have there own licences, permissions and reputation to consider. No, the way ot works is you find things to bill for. Did Lendy ever employ anyone without a work visa? Did they report their VAT correctly? there's no end to the historical things you could look into.
|
|
trias
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by trias on Jul 26, 2019 15:00:13 GMT
Hi everyone,
I haven't posted on the forum before but I'm been following it for years.
I haven't seen any clear information regarding the Proof of debt forms sent on the 15th of July (or i've missed it).
Have you all completed one? Is it required/encouraged to do one?
I would expect the administrators to have access to that information from the website (I have roughly 5k stuck in lendy).
Should I complete one?
Thank you
|
|
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 26, 2019 15:05:59 GMT
So having read the update DFL 1 and 2 are different models..... Is it better to be invested in a model 1 loan as a creditor or model 2 investor. I thought these were both model 1 yet another thing I was wrong about... There were both on model 1 terms as far as Lendy was concerned, but when it switched to a DFL a third party charge was granted to SSSH but thats fixed & floating. I still expect there is more to come on this. Who has the legal charge at the LR? Lendy appear to hold the fixed charge but no IP has been appointed on the grounds of that.
Should be noted there are multiple loans with charges in favour of Lendy & SSSH.
This is a colossal mess. Just be thankful RSM have the loan book and all Lendy records to attempt to piece it together.
Meanwhile plenty of chaos elsewhere ... Tour de france, airports ...
.
|
|
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 26, 2019 15:08:03 GMT
Hi everyone, I haven't posted on the forum before but I'm been following it for years. I haven't seen any clear information regarding the Proof of debt forms sent on the 15th of July (or i've missed it). Have you all completed one? Is it required/encouraged to do one? I would expect the administrators to have access to that information from the website (I have roughly 5k stuck in lendy). Should I complete one? Thank you See todays update. Complete if you want a vote at the creditors meeting but it isnt a requirement currently otherwise. Sign up to LAG website if you want suggestions on how to complete.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Jul 26, 2019 15:10:16 GMT
Hi everyone, I haven't posted on the forum before but I'm been following it for years. I haven't seen any clear information regarding the Proof of debt forms sent on the 15th of July (or i've missed it). Have you all completed one? Is it required/encouraged to do one? I would expect the administrators to have access to that information from the website (I have roughly 5k stuck in lendy). Should I complete one? Thank you
Note it states you only need to fill in the proof of debt form "Should you wish to vote on the Proposals" and also "Creditors should note that this is not the only opportunity to submit a claim in the Administration. Any party considering themselves a creditor of Lendy is able to submit additional/amended proof of debt forms during the course of the process."
I think you will only be able to vote on anything if you attend the creditors meeting in Solihull next Wednesday, and you would have to attend in person as they are not going to have remote attendance. I am not sure whether they will elect members of the Creditors Committee at that meeting assuming that there is a vote for one and more than 5 people want to be on it - so that might be done after the meeting, (personally I hope it is as that would be a fairer way of allowing all investors to vote on membership) but this is me guessing it may happen at the meeting.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 26, 2019 15:37:57 GMT
Unfortunately for us lenders, if RSM believe that tainted funds [possible ML funds] were co-mingled with the clean lenders account, then then entire lenders/client bank account has to be effectively gone through with a fine tooth comb. " Lendy were FCA authorised and no one worried about their AML checks when they were in business" <- Clearly they had a more important agenda on their mind, most likely LB salary and perks to keep topped up, rather than where the funds might be originating from. The administrators just need to wind down the loan book as cheaply as possible.
FCA were responsible for AML supervision:
1.5 The Government created the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS) as part of a wider package of government reforms to strengthen the UK's AML and CTF regime. We are housed within the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and became operational on 1 February 2018.1 Mar 2019
Lendy were required to have their own ML officer [Controlled Function 11], Mr. P*** C***. It was his duty to supervise and enforce AML procedures at the firm. Checking the current FCA register will confirm his duty as CF11.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,715
Likes: 2,986
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 26, 2019 15:57:06 GMT
Unfortunately, just because Lendy were cavalier in following legal procedures, doesnt mean that RSM can be. They have there own licences, permissions and reputation to consider. No, the way ot works is you find things to bill for. Did Lendy ever employ anyone without a work visa? Did they report their VAT correctly? there's no end to the historical things you could look into. And there was me thinking RSM might go above and beyond to be seen to be reasonable due to the publicity this administration attracts. As someone who admits to not know much technically about the somewhat murky world of administrations and administrators, maybe just maybe this AML work they have decided to do is really something they couldn't avoid doing and remain professional+compliant administrators. If so, that would be forgivable and it would be for another day and another thread to discuss how the industry might change to better meet the needs of creditors. If however, they could reasonably avoid doing that work but haven't, it would be a sign of them attempting to maximise their fees as most administrators seem to do.
|
|
