ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,333 
Likes: 11,552
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 19, 2020 11:20:38 GMT
They wont issue the legal advice as it will be client confidential. As Paul says they have communicated its conclusions. They are not upholding the waterfall model as defined in the t&cs. They are upholding the sums due under the loan contracts/security charges. Its better than it was but not what it should be. So must be challenged. That update talks about the Distribution Waterfall and Lendy Contractual Entitlement, so is that a different waterfall that they are definitely enforcing? I thought they were hanging on to the money pending legal advice as to whether they could keep it. So are you saying they are keeping that money unless we launch a legal challenge? The Distribution Waterfall is the one contained in the Security Charges (Docs) ie recovery costs, secured sums, borrower. That is different to any Lendy waterfall which ranked capital & interest as separate elements. It is unclear what level of legal advice they are referring to. They have said they have had it from lawyers & Counsel but I suspect they are likely to seek judicial opinion given the number of questions relating to elements of the distribution. They will ringfence the cash until it is determined definitively which will almost certainly involve legal challenge from investors unless the current legal advice changes in our favour and addresses questions of contractural unfairness, negligence, alleged impropriety. No issue with them sitting on it as it wouldnt be distributed until the end of liquidation anyway.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jan 19, 2020 11:51:06 GMT
Maybe we can ask the woman who sued us over the London Loan, she was apparently given all our details in order to serve a writ that never came. Yes thats another worry - has she destroyed them as required by the DPA? Was 'she' awarded control of them or was that restricted to her legal representatives? I'd expect the latter as they (presumably) have an ICO responsibility and accountability whereas she (formally) wouldn't have and therefore the info would have been passed to her legal reps in preference.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Jan 19, 2020 14:03:14 GMT
The Distribution Waterfall is the one contained in the Security Charges (Docs) ie recovery costs, secured sums, borrower. That is different to any Lendy waterfall which ranked capital & interest as separate elements. It is unclear what level of legal advice they are referring to. They have said they have had it from lawyers but I suspect they are likely to seek Counsel or judicial opinion given the number of questions relating to elements of the distribution. They will ringfence the cash until it is determined definitively which will almost certainly involve legal challenge from investors unless the current legal advice changes in our favour and addresses questions of contractural unfairness, negligence, alleged impropriety. No issue with them sitting on it as it wouldnt be distributed until the end of liquidation anyway. Ringfence? Only if RSM don't need it for themselves. Not sure any will be left after several years of RSM at the helm. I don't think it would be wise to assume there is any protection for the sums owed to us. Other cases that the FCA have presided over have shown there is no such thing as ringfenced client cash anymore. That is not true. In general the client cash is rignfenced. There is a new legal framework used for investment banks/brokerage, which allows the administrators to charge clients directly. I don't think it applies to the Lendy administration.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jan 19, 2020 14:04:46 GMT
Thanks for the replies, I would argue our legal advice should be paid for out of the administration given the only money RSM have is money we lent in the first place and they've used that money for their own advice already.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jan 19, 2020 14:21:01 GMT
Thanks for the replies, I would argue our legal advice should be paid for out of the administration given the only money RSM have is money we lent in the first place and they've used that money for their own advice already. That would be nice! Winning that argument is about as likely as the FCA offering to foot the bill as a gesture of goodwill and to ensure the people it is tasked with protecting have a fair crack of the whip! 
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Jan 19, 2020 16:11:42 GMT
So the fund raise is also being restricted to LAG members only? What are the LAG controlled CLB doing with regard to the waterfall/recovery fees? I thought that their role is to act for investors (Model 2 loans) only? At least half of the CLB members are on this forum, yet they too seem reluctant to say anything. I can’t imagine any reason why a fund raise would be restricted to LAG. I’ve always pushed for more engagement with this forum, like right now. The LAG do not “control” the CLB, they are a collection of individuals with minds of their own. The LAG had favourites just like I did but after that, the CLB are on their own. They are certainly allowed to be more responsive and representative of the bulk of lenders (model 2) and should be able to get behind the legal representation. In that case perhaps you can provide more information/details on what the legal fund raise's aims and objectives (and dare I say it terms) are, and suggest on here how any Lendy investor who is not a member of the LAG can contribute if they want to?
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jan 19, 2020 16:29:18 GMT
Thanks for the replies, I would argue our legal advice should be paid for out of the administration given the only money RSM have is money we lent in the first place and they've used that money for their own advice already. That would be nice! Winning that argument is about as likely as the FCA offering to foot the bill as a gesture of goodwill and to ensure the people it is tasked with protecting have a fair crack of the whip! Well only P2P seems to be able to deliver the innocent lender with these types of situations, basically RSM have used our money to pay for legal advice to see if they can keep our money
|
|
MarkT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 190
Likes: 159
|
Post by MarkT on Jan 19, 2020 18:41:37 GMT
That would be nice! Winning that argument is about as likely as the FCA offering to foot the bill as a gesture of goodwill and to ensure the people it is tasked with protecting have a fair crack of the whip! Well only P2P seems to be able to deliver the innocent lender with these types of situations, basically RSM have used our money to pay for legal advice to see if they can keep our money
The interesting thing is if RSM decide to defend this investor legal action, to maintain the status quo, then we investors will pay for that too.
|
|
one21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 265
|
Post by one21 on Jan 20, 2020 10:07:40 GMT
Lisa Taylor from the Lendy Action Group is mounting a legal challenge to the unfair waterfall mechanism whereby everyone gets paid before the actual lenders. She is asking for £1 for every £1000 invested. I have offered my pledge. We need all the people we can get behind this! I have offered my pledge also, however I have a vague recollection that Lendy stated they had something like 20K investors at some stage. There are around 1k members on the LAG website and about the same on LAG Facebook page - although many of these could be one of the same! Edit: Thinking about it I suppose there's probably a high percentage of low value lender's with say less than 1k invested - who knows!
|
|
|
|
Post by paul123 on Jan 20, 2020 11:30:49 GMT
From Lisa (with permission):
****UPDATE****
Just a quick note to update everyone on the fund raising activity.
We are in process of finalising initial activities with counsel. This is taking longer than hoped as we wish to be 100% certain we execute the correct plan.
Once we complete these discussions, we will update you and commence the fund raising campaign
Additional info will be posted later this week. Please stand by.
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490 
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on Jan 20, 2020 12:11:32 GMT
Lisa Taylor from the Lendy Action Group is mounting a legal challenge to the unfair waterfall mechanism whereby everyone gets paid before the actual lenders. She is asking for £1 for every £1000 invested. I have offered my pledge. We need all the people we can get behind this! I have offered my pledge also, however I have a vague recollection that Lendy stated they had something like 20K investors at some stage. There are around 1k members on the LAG website and about the same on LAG Facebook page - although many of these could be one of the same! Edit: Thinking about it I suppose there's probably a high percentage of low value lender's with say less than 1k invested - who knows! Read that as c20K registered investors. My understanding is the number of active investors is nearer half that, i.e. 9-10K.
There is a poll on the LAG website with c500 "votes" which gives some insight into the spread of people's investments.
|
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jan 20, 2020 19:58:30 GMT
I have offered my pledge also, however I have a vague recollection that Lendy stated they had something like 20K investors at some stage. There are around 1k members on the LAG website and about the same on LAG Facebook page - although many of these could be one of the same! Edit: Thinking about it I suppose there's probably a high percentage of low value lender's with say less than 1k invested - who knows! Read that as c20K registered investors. My understanding is the number of active investors is nearer half that, i.e. 9-10K.
There is a poll on the LAG website with c500 "votes" which gives some insight into the spread of people's investments.
I will support this with a £ contribution. My own investment in Lendy is almost £0 but I will contribute on behalf of family members who stand to lose out.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 21, 2020 3:00:32 GMT
Lisa Taylor from the Lendy Action Group is mounting a legal challenge to the unfair waterfall mechanism whereby everyone gets paid before the actual lenders. She is asking for £1 for every £1000 invested. I have offered my pledge. We need all the people we can get behind this! I have offered my pledge also, however I have a vague recollection that Lendy stated they had something like 20K investors at some stage. There are around 1k members on the LAG website and about the same on LAG Facebook page - although many of these could be one of the same! Edit: Thinking about it I suppose there's probably a high percentage of low value lender's with say less than 1k invested - who knows! just to clarify that the proposals affect only those early loans that were where the money was lent to Lendy not to those with security backed loans. There would be no mechanism to take money from a complete loan that paid back and just say we will just give every Tom dick and Harry a bit because we want too.
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Jan 21, 2020 9:25:34 GMT
this applies to model 2 loans, not model 1 loans. these are the greater majority of loans. this has been clearly stated by LAG on the website.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jan 21, 2020 10:35:18 GMT
I have offered my pledge also, however I have a vague recollection that Lendy stated they had something like 20K investors at some stage. There are around 1k members on the LAG website and about the same on LAG Facebook page - although many of these could be one of the same! Edit: Thinking about it I suppose there's probably a high percentage of low value lender's with say less than 1k invested - who knows! just to clarify that the proposals affect only those early loans that were where the money was lent to Lendy not to those with security backed loans. There would be no mechanism to take money from a complete loan that paid back and just say we will just give every Tom dick and Harry a bit because we want too. this applies to model 2 loans, not model 1 loans. these are the greater majority of loans. this has been clearly stated by LAG on the website. I see it as: it applies to Model 2 loans (the majority) and affects both Model 1* and Model 2 loans. As things stand, the current recognised waterfall collects the default fees and interest stated as being owed to Lendy in the borrowers' loan agreement for Model 2 loans and puts it into Lendy's coffers. Whilst this adversely affects Model 2 holders in each Model 2 loan, it positively affects all Model 1 loan holders who access to those Lendy coffers as direct creditors of Lendy. The suggested challenge would somewhat reverse that situation, repaying more of the redeemed loan sums to the lenders of each Model 2 loan, thereby reducing the amount apportioned to Lendy and thus available to Model 1 lenders as creditors of Lendy. As a lender in both models, but weighted more to Model 2 loans, I'd potentially be better off with a change to the currently recognised waterfall. Other lenders' mileage may vary. * - these are DFLs 001 / 002 and PBLs 027 / 031 / 056.
|
|
