Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179 
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Oct 28, 2019 22:41:17 GMT
@joe1 - the large deduction is as a result of the Lendy T&C's that we all agreed to when making loans on Lendy, and evidenced by other large deductions on recoveries of other defaulted loans earlier this year. Given DFL012 repaid before the administration of Lendy, this should have been anticipated as a possibility.
The DDC discussion is of wider implications, and is not necessarily related to DFL012.
The terms where Lendy started ranking their accrued/default interest ahead of investor principal only came into force in March 2018. Many investors refused these new terms and a large portion of investors didn’t make a single new investment on the platform past this date yet Lendy attempted to retrospectively these highly unfair and detrimental terms to all loans (even loans made prior to this date) without the specific consent of investors. It remains to be seen how legally enforceable this “fees waterfall” really is and LAG was actually created by @wizimu prior to Lendy’s administration to fight these new terms being applied to old loans and is a core LAG position.... POSITION 3. MODEL 2 TERMS – (36H COMPLIANT) AND VARIATIONS – MODEL 2ALAG is aware that in early 2016 Lendy introduced new lender terms which were Article 36H compliant (ie true P2P loans). The terms were revised frequently with little material effect as far as we are presently aware until March 5th 2018. We refer to all these versions as Model 2 terms.
On March 5th 2018 (and as amended July 11th 2018) Lendy introduced several post-contractual material changes to the Model 2 terms which substantially reduced Lendy’s obligations to lenders while Lendy’s right to fees was substantially increased, with first priority following recovery. These changes put Lendy’s business model in direct conflict with the interests of investors by allowing their “fees and commission” to rank ahead of investor capital, thus creating a ‘waterfall’ to lenders detriment. We refer to all these versions as Model 2A terms. These terms also irrevocably appoint Lendy / SSSH as agent / trustee meaning that as an investor, you are unable to remove Lendy as agent under any circumstances.
Lendy attempted to retrospectively apply these Model 2A terms to all loan parts that lenders invested in prior to March 5th 2018 without gaining the specific consent or agreement of Lendy investors.
LAG consider the Model 2A terms unfair, detrimental and likely unenforceable.
LAG put the administration on notice that many lenders took advantage of clause 24.1 and informed Lendy that they refused retrospective application of these terms. LAG’s position is that all loan parts invested in prior to 5th March 2018 should have the appropriate terms apply to them that were in place when the loan was originally promoted on the Lendy platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 28, 2019 22:54:37 GMT
For anyone that is interested the thread discussing the March 2018 T&C's is here
I'll confess I didn't feel there was a massive outcry at the time*, and from a quick scan through the thread no mention at all of this disadvantageous waterfall.
* the new MT T&C's at roughly the same time produced a much more vocal response.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Oct 28, 2019 23:55:24 GMT
For anyone that is interested the thread discussing the March 2018 T&C's is here
I'll confess I didn't feel there was a massive outcry at the time*, and from a quick scan through the thread no mention at all of this disadvantageous waterfall.
* the new MT T&C's at roughly the same time produced a much more vocal response.
Might be due to the fact that MT explained the differences clearly, said they would only apply to loans moving forward and gave investors a transparent route to opt-out. Lendy just kind of rolled them out quietly hoping nobody would notice the highly detrimental and negative impact they would have and assumed that compliance via ‘continued use of the platform’ gave them carte blanche to retrospectively apply them to every single loan on the platform regardless of which terms you invested under when the loan was originated.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 29, 2019 8:32:47 GMT
If what is being related is the position presumably the first thing to do is to request that the Administrator repay their entitlement based on the old terms rather than the smaller interim payment already on the table. Their response might reveal their adopted position.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 29, 2019 9:04:23 GMT
DFL034 98.8% partial repayment (R1) }
} Falmouth
DFL037 99.8% partial repayment (R1) }
100% reduction in security holding.
As these were both refinances, I can't see a good reason to release security without some kind of legally binding agreement that would see the loans repaid in full by the time the project is fully completed and units sold at a profit. If the new finance provider and the borrower make money on the project (rather than merely mitigating their losses) I certainly expect to do so too.
Interestingly, RSM/Lendy are still promising (via the relevant page on the website) that "Interest for these loans will be credited at the end of the month." for DFL032 and DFL037.
Once the various interim payments for the remaining backlogged capital payments are processed, I look forward to them processing the interest that has either been held on account either since May, or for various loans which I recall paid for extensions...
... but as I recall not all of it had actually been held on account in May, so might form part of our claim against Lendy.
Although we must of course wait for the explanation of how the amounts were determined from Lendy/RSM, I would speculate that the amounts we've received are the amounts that are unambiguously and definitively associated with the specific loans repaid, and that the "shortfall" is being held as a wider pool that may need to be dipped into for "claims against Lendy", but which may otherwise be distributed as originally intended, perhaps depending in part on the outcome of other actions, some of which may be confidential at this time.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Oct 29, 2019 9:31:24 GMT
Although we must of course wait for the explanation of how the amounts were determined from Lendy/RSM, I would speculate that the amounts we've received are the amounts that are unambiguously and definitively associated with the specific loans repaid, and that the "shortfall" is being held as a wider pool that may need to be dipped into for "claims against Lendy", but which may otherwise be distributed as originally intended, perhaps depending in part on the outcome of other actions, some of which may be confidential at this time. Excellent analysis - 100% correct.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Oct 29, 2019 9:55:05 GMT
For anyone that is interested the thread discussing the March 2018 T&C's is here
I'll confess I didn't feel there was a massive outcry at the time*, and from a quick scan through the thread no mention at all of this disadvantageous waterfall.
* the new MT T&C's at roughly the same time produced a much more vocal response.
Might be due to the fact that MT explained the differences clearly, said they would only apply to loans moving forward and gave investors a transparent route to opt-out. Lendy just kind of rolled them out quietly hoping nobody would notice the highly detrimental and negative impact they would have and assumed that compliance via ‘continued use of the platform’ gave them carte blanche to retrospectively apply them to every single loan on the platform regardless of which terms you invested under when the loan was originated. Their commission for the website design specifically stated it wanted to raise a profile that was approachable to all - I think they relied upon most lenders not having a clue as to the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 29, 2019 10:05:10 GMT
Banner on the top of the Lendy website:
Our intention is to allow withdrawal requests to be reinstated as of the close of business on Wednesday 30th October 2019. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
i.e. tomorrow
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Oct 29, 2019 11:32:52 GMT
I now have DFL034 & 037 distributions credited. Working late in Lendy Towers tonight. Probably claiming double time.
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Oct 29, 2019 11:38:20 GMT
DFL012 45.5% partial repayment (R1) vs 100% reduction in security holding, LiverpoolSo three almost full capital repayments (vs security released) and one c. 45% recovery, pretty much as good as anyone could have (should have) hoped for at this point IMO. Personally I hoped for more on DF012. I think 45% is a travesty and this particular loan should be looked at as potentially fraudulent. I think I saw someone write that unsecured creditors lost less than we holding the security, and that LB did some crooked deal to retain the freehold. What a piece of sh*t that man is 
|
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Oct 29, 2019 11:55:23 GMT
45% for you, 55% for his Malta slush fund. What's the problem?
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Oct 29, 2019 12:10:00 GMT
DFL012 45.5% partial repayment (R1) vs 100% reduction in security holding, LiverpoolSo three almost full capital repayments (vs security released) and one c. 45% recovery, pretty much as good as anyone could have (should have) hoped for at this point IMO. Personally I hoped for more on DF012. I think 45% is a travesty and this particular loan should be looked at as potentially fraudulent. I think I saw someone write that unsecured creditors lost less than we holding the security, and that LB did some crooked deal to retain the freehold. What a piece of sh*t that man is Indeed, unsecured creditors got most of their money back. The reason we have 45 percent is that we investors were robbed, simple as that.
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Oct 29, 2019 12:13:36 GMT
joe91 - the large deduction is as a result of the Lendy T&C's that we all agreed to when making loans on Lendy, and is evidenced by large deductions on recoveries of other defaulted loans earlier this year. Given DFL012 repaid (to Lendy) before the administration of Lendy, this should have been anticipated as a possibility/probability.
The other loans repaid today were not in default (or not in default for long ? there have been various extensions to these loans since Lendy went into admin)
The DDC discussion is of wider implications, and is not necessarily related to DFL012.
Are you saying that the missing 20% (a substantial sum) has not been held back by RSM but has been swiped by LB as he ran for the exit. Unbelievable. I think I have just qualified for DDC membership so I will request access to get more info. Thanks to the senior members on here for sharing their knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 29, 2019 12:19:47 GMT
joe91 - the large deduction is as a result of the Lendy T&C's that we all agreed to when making loans on Lendy, and is evidenced by large deductions on recoveries of other defaulted loans earlier this year. Given DFL012 repaid (to Lendy) before the administration of Lendy, this should have been anticipated as a possibility/probability.
The other loans repaid today were not in default (or not in default for long ? there have been various extensions to these loans since Lendy went into admin)
The DDC discussion is of wider implications, and is not necessarily related to DFL012.
Are you saying that the missing 20% (a substantial sum) has not been held back by RSM but has been swiped by LB as he ran for the exit. Unbelievable. Actually 30% of what the receivers sent Lendy.
As I said on another thread yesterday "I doubt we will ever know whether (most of) that was deducted by Lendy immediately prior to their administration."
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Oct 29, 2019 12:21:38 GMT
Personally I hoped for more on DF012. I think 45% is a travesty and this particular loan should be looked at as potentially fraudulent. I think I saw someone write that unsecured creditors lost less than we holding the security, and that LB did some crooked deal to retain the freehold. What a piece of sh*t that man is Indeed, unsecured creditors got most of their money back. The reason we have 45 percent is that we investors were robbed, simple as that. It’s hard to come up with an alternative explanation. Presumably the FCA or fraud office are too busy to look at this type of robbery.
|
|
