duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,880 
Likes: 6,964
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Dec 23, 2019 11:30:18 GMT
I would agree that by their previous statement the FCA were distancing themselves from the problems of Lendy. However the fact remains that the role of Administrators is limited by statute i.e. they have a narrow focus. The FCA has a much wider remit and should be examining the wider issues urgently. If Lendy's rapacious behaviour goes unchallenged it has the potential to be replicated on any platform at any time. I currently have a £50K p to p exposure so am not comfortable with the FCA's current stance which looks too much like sticking head in sand. Following on I could not help but empathise with the views expressed in yesterdays Sunday Times Business Section letters, by a member of the public drawing attention to Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 which apparently provides broad powers to bring errant directors to court. An errant director in this context would be one who had not acted in a manner that promoted the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. Membership includes staff, suppliers, customers and creditors, so pretty all-encompassing. I wasn't suggesting that the FCA don't / won't have questions to answer hence my musing on a FOI. You can of course lodge a complaint directly or you can write a submission and ask it to be included in the 'investigation' (as stated is taking place on their statement) but personally I like to have some firm facts on which to base an argument. My experience with the FCA / Col says nothing takes place quickly, they are (understandably) a process driven organisation and action is timed in months/years not weeks. As an example I fully expect the Col investigation to be extended for another 6 months on the 27th, the investigation will have been running for over 2 years. As we stand at present the waterfall stands (or appears to be standing) and the people implementing it (probably after legal advice) are the Administrators. IMHO hoping that the FCA will step in quickly (after they have stepped away) to halt what is probably a legally enforceable position doesn't seem probable. So the point I was making was about timing rather than any issues that could or should be examined by the FCA.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 6,964
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Dec 23, 2019 11:37:34 GMT
typo not at all PROactive The point I was making was that FCA had a lot of information (written submissions) from IFAs telling them what was going on with mini bonds and they took no action, hence me saying 'not at all active', in my mind to be proactive the FCA would have had to find out what was going on themselves not having it served to them on a plate. Sorry if my terminology caused a problem to anybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Dec 23, 2019 14:55:05 GMT
I would agree that by their previous statement the FCA were distancing themselves from the problems of Lendy. However the fact remains that the role of Administrators is limited by statute i.e. they have a narrow focus. The FCA has a much wider remit and should be examining the wider issues urgently. If Lendy's rapacious behaviour goes unchallenged it has the potential to be replicated on any platform at any time. I currently have a £50K p to p exposure so am not comfortable with the FCA's current stance which looks too much like sticking head in sand. Following on I could not help but empathise with the views expressed in yesterdays Sunday Times Business Section letters, by a member of the public drawing attention to Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 which apparently provides broad powers to bring errant directors to court. An errant director in this context would be one who had not acted in a manner that promoted the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. Membership includes staff, suppliers, customers and creditors, so pretty all-encompassing. I wasn't suggesting that the FCA don't / won't have questions to answer hence my musing on a FOI. You can of course lodge a complaint directly or you can write a submission and ask it to be included in the 'investigation' (as stated is taking place on their statement) but personally I like to have some firm facts on which to base an argument. My experience with the FCA / Col says nothing takes place quickly, they are (understandably) a process driven organisation and action is timed in months/years not weeks. As an example I fully expect the Col investigation to be extended for another 6 months on the 27th, the investigation will have been running for over 2 years. As we stand at present the waterfall stands (or appears to be standing) and the people implementing it (probably after legal advice) are the Administrators. IMHO hoping that the FCA will step in quickly (after they have stepped away) to halt what is probably a legally enforceable position doesn't seem probable. So the point I was making was about timing rather than any issues that could or should be examined by the FCA. For me it is not about how long a slow motion FCA take to investigate misdemeanours. It is the level of risk to which investors are exposed simply by participating within an industry in which it appears platforms are to all intents and purposes unregulated until after severely detrimental events have long unfolded and with recompense unavailable. If Lendy directors have broken every rule in the book and subsequently are hauled before the courts will this lead to meaningful recoveries? Me thinks not. The FCA has the powers to step in and annul the waterfall arrangements which are an unfair business practice. Let those who put the waterfall in place see how far they get taking the FCA to court. Currently waterfall payments are only on hold by the good grace of nervous Administrators. Personally I will not be pursuing matters on an individual basis as my investment via Lendy is small.
|
|
poyais
New Member
Posts: 1
Likes: 1
|
Post by poyais on Dec 24, 2019 12:26:16 GMT
The issue here is the way in which the FCA operates, it is a reactive body not proactive. It might act if fed information (the mini bonds issues show they are not very not at all reactive) but since the exact terms (and their implications) were to investors at the time unknown/opaque no challenge was / could be made. Whilst I cannot be certain what went on for the long time between Lendy applying for full Part 4A approval and it being granted there is nothing in the Part 4A application paperwork that suggests this issue will have been examined. Of course you can ask the questions directly of the FCA via a FOI words along the lines of - Did the FCA examine and approve Lendy's Consumer Terms and Conditions before granting Full Permissions?
- Did the FCA examine and approve the 'payments waterfall' (in particular default payments) before granting Full Permissions?
I can't say they will answer since there is an investigation in progress ..... That however is water under the bridge now, the FCA have firmly washed their hands of Lendy with their statement. I note RSM have pointed 11025 back to the FCAs " Unfair contract terms" which gives us a circle, FCA passes to RSM and RSM passes to the FCA who have already said all inquiries shoud be directed to RSM. If raised with the FCA they might add the issue to their 'investigation' as noted on their statement but as anybody who is involved with Col will know these investigations can stretch on for years. If this matter is to be sorted IMHO it needs to be officially (and legally) raised with RSM. I am not on the CC or even a member of LAG so I don't know if this has already been done but if this matter is to be raised now is the time before payments are made, distributed and salted away. I would agree that by their previous statement the FCA were distancing themselves from the problems of Lendy. However the fact remains that the role of Administrators is limited by statute i.e. they have a narrow focus. The FCA has a much wider remit and should be examining the wider issues urgently. If Lendy's rapacious behaviour goes unchallenged it has the potential to be replicated on any platform at any time. I currently have a £50K p to p exposure so am not comfortable with the FCA's current stance which looks too much like sticking head in sand. Following on I could not help but empathise with the views expressed in yesterdays Sunday Times Business Section letters, by a member of the public drawing attention to Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 which apparently provides broad powers to bring errant directors to court. An errant director in this context would be one who had not acted in a manner that promoted the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. Membership includes staff, suppliers, customers and creditors, so pretty all-encompassing. Do we know that Lendy meet the criteria to fall under section 172? They would have to have more than £36mil annual turnover and £18 mil in balance sheet assets. It's a great point if they fall under this criteria.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Dec 24, 2019 13:50:04 GMT
re this section 172 points, would they not argue that, pre platform collapse, money to Lendy first, was in order to protect the stability of the platform for all concerned? However, the platform does not exist as an investment platform now, it no longer needs protecting, and therefore the waterfall of funds going to Lendy has false intent, to throw one view into it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sma1tman on Dec 24, 2019 14:49:26 GMT
.
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 368
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Dec 26, 2019 18:19:23 GMT
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Dec 28, 2019 18:34:40 GMT
Do we know that Lendy meet the criteria to fall under section 172? They would have to have more than £36mil annual turnover and £18 mil in balance sheet assets. It's a great point if they fall under this criteria.
Account to Dec 2018 CORRECTION DEC 2017 show turnover 32M; so close, the BS reports 190M of debtors, but to my mind that's nonsense, as most of the debtors owe us not Lendy
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 28, 2019 19:02:03 GMT
Do we know that Lendy meet the criteria to fall under section 172? They would have to have more than £36mil annual turnover and £18 mil in balance sheet assets. It's a great point if they fall under this criteria.
Account to Dec 2018 show turnover 32M; so close, the BS reports 190M of debtors, but to my mind that's nonsense, as most of the debtors owe us not Lendy
Was only able to find a/c's to Dec 2017 which also showed t/o of £32mm. I would have thought t/o in the year of entering administration would have tailed off from previous 'highs' in 'successful' years? Guessing on my part, but it seems logical ...
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Dec 29, 2019 14:24:45 GMT
Sorry. end 2017 indeed
|
|
|
|
Post by mattygroves on Dec 29, 2019 14:55:25 GMT
I would agree that by their previous statement the FCA were distancing themselves from the problems of Lendy. However the fact remains that the role of Administrators is limited by statute i.e. they have a narrow focus. The FCA has a much wider remit and should be examining the wider issues urgently. If Lendy's rapacious behaviour goes unchallenged it has the potential to be replicated on any platform at any time. I currently have a £50K p to p exposure so am not comfortable with the FCA's current stance which looks too much like sticking head in sand. Following on I could not help but empathise with the views expressed in yesterdays Sunday Times Business Section letters, by a member of the public drawing attention to Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 which apparently provides broad powers to bring errant directors to court. An errant director in this context would be one who had not acted in a manner that promoted the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. Membership includes staff, suppliers, customers and creditors, so pretty all-encompassing. Do we know that Lendy meet the criteria to fall under section 172? They would have to have more than £36mil annual turnover and £18 mil in balance sheet assets. It's a great point if they fall under this criteria. The criteria you refer to only relate to their obligation to publish their actions in relation to s172. The actual clause itself applies to all companies regardless of size. The definition of members for a company is very clear and it is simply those entered on the company’s register of members (see Companies Act 2006 s112) which are the shareholders for a normal company. The bodies referred to above (staff, suppliers, customers, creditors etc) are stakeholders and although they need to be considered the primary function of directors is to deliver the best results for members - which can often be at odds with the requirements of stakeholders for example closing a plant may be in the best interests of members but clearly isn’t in the best interests of staff. So long as the directors can show they have considered stakeholders in their deliberations they are allowed to do things that are against stakeholders interests.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jan 5, 2020 14:06:11 GMT
|
|
MarkT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 190
Likes: 159
|
Post by MarkT on Jan 5, 2020 15:55:52 GMT
Many thanks for the share token.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 5, 2020 20:37:11 GMT
This lot, together with BDO and Mazars, are second tier half-educated drooling dolts that depend on these rent-seeking statutory protected roles to make a living. The low level ones are like Wally in the Dilbert strip. The higher level ones are like... well, we know a few.
|
|
tombraider
Member of DD Central
Posts: 117
Likes: 103
|
Post by tombraider on Jan 5, 2020 20:43:37 GMT
It just goes from bad to worse. You have to question everything they are charging us...
|
|
