ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,850
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 9, 2021 22:02:54 GMT
Hello - Does anyone know what is now happening with Lendy Wealth. I had some cash back early on and not heard anything since. The latest admin report say that individual loan portfolios will be provided to Wealth60 customers in January & any distributions due to both sets of Wealth investors will follow. AIUI there are no 365 loans with distributions due apart from DFL019. If 60 holdings are similar then DFL037, 34 & 21 are due.
|
|
|
Post by valueinvestor123 on Feb 10, 2021 13:49:08 GMT
I have asked this elsewhere but got no answer: regarding the court process organised by LAG. Any idea whether the monies (that are being disputed) are paid into segregated accounts and on hold until end of the process or whether ithey are being paid out? My worry is that even if courts rule in investors' favour, the money may be gone by then. Also why is the wait so long for the process to start? (June I think?) Are there no extenuating circumstances to accelerate the process?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 10, 2021 14:41:05 GMT
I have asked this elsewhere but got no answer: regarding the court process organised by LAG. Any idea whether the monies (that are being disputed) are paid into segregated accounts and on hold until end of the process or whether ithey are being paid out? My worry is that even if courts rule in investors' favour, the money may be gone by then. Also why is the wait so long for the process to start? (June I think?) Are there no extenuating circumstances to accelerate the process? There was a Case management conference held in December 2020 which identified the issued to be decided at the trial in June 2021. The relevant part of the order from that hearing is here: p2pindependentforum.com/post/418745/thread
It is my understanding that the costs of Lisa Taylor representing the Model 2 investors in this case are being paid as a cost of the administration, ie by Lendy, to ensure the arguments are properly financed.
|
|
|
Post by valueinvestor123 on Feb 10, 2021 14:43:18 GMT
Sorry, I meant the costs (fees) that the argument is about (Waterfall commission), not the costs paid by us/Lisa Taylor.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,850
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 10, 2021 15:09:30 GMT
Sorry, I meant the costs (fees) that the argument is about (Waterfall commission), not the costs paid by us/Lisa Taylor. As per the last admin report, the administrators have drawn from the contractural entitlement but limited to the 3% management fee they are entitled to should the court disapply the waterfall (ie the SLA). The funds remain in the client account. As to time, as can be seen from the lengthy issues list, it is complicated and case preparation will take a fair amount of time, plus the difficulties of current circumstances.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Mar 26, 2021 14:21:24 GMT
latest update again all about KYC and AML checks on lenders with a bit of data cleansing thrown in to keep them busy. i was hoping for a few updates on the loan book. there must be something to report on all of these loans.its a pity all these checks were not done on the scamming borrowers and the platform directors then we might not have ended up in this farcical situation.they already know where the money came from to fund all these so called projects.finding out where it went and what it was spent on would be a better use of their time and our money.
|
|
|
Post by p2psws on Mar 26, 2021 14:52:19 GMT
latest update again all about KYC and AML checks on lenders with a bit of data cleansing thrown in to keep them busy. i was hoping for a few updates on the loan book. there must be something to report on all of these loans.its a pity all these checks were not done on the scamming borrowers and the platform directors then we might not have ended up in this farcical situation.they already know where the money came from to fund all these so called projects.finding out where it went and what it was spent on would be a better use of their time and our money. EXACTLY!! Well put!
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 290
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Mar 27, 2021 9:29:32 GMT
latest update again all about KYC and AML checks on lenders with a bit of data cleansing thrown in to keep them busy. i was hoping for a few updates on the loan book. there must be something to report on all of these loans.its a pity all these checks were not done on the scamming borrowers and the platform directors then we might not have ended up in this farcical situation.they already know where the money came from to fund all these so called projects.finding out where it went and what it was spent on would be a better use of their time and our money. Given it looks like so little of lender capital is going to be returned it's a pretty unsuccesful way of laundering money already and if anyone has used the platform to do that they've had their money confiscated anyway...
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Apr 10, 2021 9:00:47 GMT
One of the last loans lendy tried to scam us with was a plot of land for building of a megamansion. The loan was to somebody in Malta, but the whole premise was dodgy from the outset (like they needed 80k for marketing but somehow were going to be good for 4 million). I think this loan should be probed as part of the lendy investigation.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 623
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on May 6, 2021 12:37:54 GMT
The below was published in the LAG group in FB and may be of interest to Lendy investors here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Support / Opt-in Action Required
RESPONSE BY MONDAY 17TH MAY REQUIRED, OR INCLUSION IS NOT GUARANTEED
This project is being undertaken for Funding Secure Action Group members. Lisa has asked us to post here on LAG for those who also wish to join for Lendy.
Correspondence to the FCA/MPs/Treasury and/or other groups holds more weight if it’s supported by a united group, rather than individuals, hence we need to show a united front.
We are now at the stage where we have to declare who is signed up to FSAG and ideally LAG, and importantly, that we have their unequivocal permission to write/communicate on their behalf.
We are to write to the above letters of complaint highlighting the multiple failures of the FCA in regards to both Lendy and Funding Secure and seeking a Public Inquiry into the purported lack of Supervision demonstrated by the FCA in regards to both these companies.
This is especially pertinent for FS, where the FCA approved a Change of Control procedure in October 2018. We can only hypothesise that not all the protocols could possibly have been followed or signed off by the FCA prior to granting the Change of Control.
Will all those lenders from LAG that wish to have their names associated with these proposed letters, please give FSAG your written consent to add your name at the bottom of the letters we are to write.
The letter will be signed “FSAG Administrator(s) / Marc ***** / [other FSAG/LAG members]” followed by a list of all people’s names that have opt-in.
THIS OPT-IN PERMISSION NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED BY EMAIL (LEGALITY).
• Please send your approval in writing to FSAGFCA@yahoo.com
• In the basic form of “[your name] gives my full support to FSAG/LAG”
• Please include:
(1) your first and last name. This is 100% required to opt-in.
(2) the name of your MP, his political party and constituency (saves us time later on in hunting out 100's of MPs),
(3) if you have funds in FS or Lendy, and if you want to divulge the amount you have currently frozen (1st May 2021) in each company. This will give us a cumulative idea as to how large the problem is compared to other FCA regulated and non-regulated collapses recently.
Should you be aware of anyone who is not signed up to LAG or FSAG, please forward this post to them for their consideration to opt-in.
If you are NOT fully satisfied with the proposed way forward, please do NOT respond to this request. If you do not want to share your info, then only share what you are comfortable sharing.
We have a very small team here and doing what we can with quite literally zero resources.
A copy of the letter(s) will not be published on FSAG (or LAG), as last time a letter was published in good faith on the FSAG platform for the lender’s info, the joint administrators quoted the letter in court.
Any questions, please post here on the forum for all to see.
The above is done purely as a goodwill gesture on our part. If you do not feel happy, or are not in agreement by 100% support in providing your name, or concerned about any ramifications, then please don’t support.
The above is not an alternative to everyone making their own representation, you must also continue to chase up the FCA on your own accord. Literally, every letter they receive will add to our + your chances of success.
All the best,
Marc & FSAG Team
|
|
69m
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 200
|
Post by 69m on Nov 19, 2021 23:57:15 GMT
I see that Liam Brooke and Lendy Limited are the joint respondents in an Employment Tribunal. The claimant's initial and surname match with Lendy's (presumably former) Chief Financial Officer who joined the company in July 2018.
The Reasons for the judgement in this Employment Tribunal were uploaded yesterday ( link to gov.uk). It seems that the Tribunal wasn't too impressed by Brooke. Paragraph 7 states: "The Tribunal has made the following findings of fact after considering all the evidence, documents and submissions it received during the hearing. There are substantial disputes of fact between the Claimant and Mr Brooke.
"When considering these disputes of fact the Tribunal has preferred the evidence of the Claimant to that of Mr Brooke. This is because the Claimant's evidence to the Tribunal, and his response to questions put to him in cross-examination, provided a coherent narrative which confirmed that he has a clear recollection of the relevant events that occurred in his short period of employment with Lendy and had undertaken careful analysis of his issues of concern in respect of Lendy's business model and governance that arose during his employment. Furthermore his evidence was supported by the documents referred to the Tribunal during the course of the hearing.
"This is in stark contrast to Mr Brooke's evidence to the Tribunal. He often had no, or uncertain, recollection of relevant events about which he was questioned and his answers were often evasive and were contradicted by concerns about Lendy's business which had been raised by the Financial Conduct Authority during the period under consideration by the Tribunal." More significantly, the document provides an insight into how the business was being managed (or rather mismanaged), and Brooke's motivations. For instance, paragraph 17 states:
"Lendy was already under close scrutiny by the FCA by this time. The Claimant was also being asked by Mr Brooke to support the efforts which he was making to sell his business.
"The Claimant further alleges that in late September Lendy's cash reserves had been depleted when Mr Brooke had instructed Lendy's Financial Controller to transfer £1.5-2million out of Lendy's reserves to be paid as dividends to his holding company. He explained that this had resulted in a liquidity crisis as a result of which Mr Brooke had then directed that Lendy's ongoing operating expenses could be met by utilising funds from the Retained Interest Account."
The misuse of the Retained Interest Account appears to be one of the main issues that eventually led to the Claimaint's dismissal. Paragraph 19 states:
"The Claimant was already aware that Lendy had from time-to-time already taken money from the Retained Interest Account for its own purposes. He was already concerned that Lendy had no entitlement to use the Account in that way but it had taken him some time for him to investigate the matter properly.
"In late October 2018 the Claimant shared with Mr [Redacted], Lendy's Head of Legal, his analysis of Lendy's position and responsibilities in respect of the Retained Interest Account, as a result of which he had concluded that Lendy had been systematically, and significantly, mismanaging the Account by using it to pay Lendy's operating expenses."
Clearly the Claimant understood the seriousness of what was going on. Paragraph 27 states:
"The Claimant also raised concerns about his personal position. At this point in the discussion Mr Brooke informed him that he would take out appropriate insurance cover to protect his position. The Claimant's response to that suggestion was to inform Mr Brooke that such cover would not protect either the Claimant or Mr Brooke from facing criminal prosecutions."
Obviously, the above are just selected excerpts. The entire document is certainly worth reading.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 20, 2021 0:27:18 GMT
Obviously, the above are just selected excerpts. The entire document is certainly worth reading.
It certainly is. Great find.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,599
Likes: 4,185
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 20, 2021 10:14:26 GMT
Think para 16 is my favourite bit;
Lendy was subject to critical press reports in late September 2018 and
around that time a document prepared by Mr Brooke, which apparently
directed his staff to withhold information from the FCA as to Lendy's position,
had been sent in error to the FCA
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Nov 22, 2021 10:54:40 GMT
"34. Mr Greaves submits that the conversation between the Claimant, Mr Patel and Mr Brooke in Mr Brooke's office on 5 November did not take place"
Since the claimant says the meeting took place and the respondent says it didn't take place, I would love to know Mr Patel's opinion on whether the meeting took place or not!
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Nov 22, 2021 11:45:30 GMT
"34. Mr Greaves submits that the conversation between the Claimant, Mr Patel and Mr Brooke in Mr Brooke's office on 5 November did not take place" Since the claimant says the meeting took place and the respondent says it didn't take place, I would love to know Mr Patel's opinion on whether the meeting took place or not! Nothing like getting a reliable second opinion!!!!
|
|