|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 24, 2019 0:43:17 GMT
Leaving aside this stupid mismanagement from RSM (We all know that RSM, BDO and the likes are no more than second tier bean counters and proven incompetent), is there any reason to think that LAG has an agenda that is not aligned with the common interest of Lendy investors as a whole? As I understand it LAG was being setup prior to the administration of Lendy.
There was also a forum member earlier this year who was organising a class action against Lendy to force the repayment of the model 1 loans, and had quite a few lenders interested enough to make further enquiries with the law firm being proposed. (I've no idea how far that legal action progressed, but my concerns that it would force Lendy into voluntary administration were dismissed as "rubbish" when I expressed them in a series of PM's at the time.)
I have no idea the extent to which those behind LAG are the same individuals that were organising an 'action group' earlier this year to force the model 1 loans to be repaid even though it might force Lendy into administration to the detriment of model 2 loan holders. A random selection of lenders for the CLB would have avoided any such concerns (i.e. 5 names picked from a hat containing the nominees) and would have been preferable to RSM's own original proposal of the 5 largest lenders, given some of those may have had "more money than sense".
Whilst LAG is almost certainly a cause for good in general terms, it is not great that no-one outside of LAG (despite nominating themselves) has been permitted to join the CLB to act as a check & balance. In an ideal world, the CLB should have comprised of people who only have model 2 loans, to avoid any conflict of interest with respect to model 1 holdings which will benefit from the deductions from the model 2 loans.
All of that said, I'm somewhat ambivalent as I fear the CLB's main role in the eyes of RSM is to rubber stamp (on behalf of all lenders) what has already been agreed between Grant Thornton & RSM based on the legal advice already sought regarding the fee deductions from model 2 loans. The prospect of real influence is I fear just an illusion.
Irrespective of the actual motives of LAG, if they do end up rubber stamping the massive deductons from the model 2 loans (as in practical terms they may have little option but to do so in the end), the "stupid mismanagement from RSM" as you put it is very likely to result in legal challenges against RSM/Grant Thornton by HNW lenders who may feel a higher recovery of their loans would have been possible if the CLB had been appointed as per the intent emailed to all lenders. So, I'm afriad, its yet more costs that RSM will rack up in defending the claims.
Maybe LAG should renounce one of their 5 seats on the CLB to remove some of the risk of this being challenged in the courts.
Like most longer term lenders at Lendy, I do have some model 1 loans, representing perhaps 10% of my account balance. However, as a small percentage of the total, I like most lenders would benefit from lower deductions on the model 2 loans rather than a full recovery of the model 1 loans. But there are a few individuals (i.e. those progressing the class action earlier this year) that will benefit from larger deductions on the model 2 loans to provide fuller recovery on their model 1 loans.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179 
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 24, 2019 8:31:21 GMT
Leaving aside this stupid mismanagement from RSM (We all know that RSM, BDO and the likes are no more than second tier bean counters and proven incompetent), is there any reason to think that LAG has an agenda that is not aligned with the common interest of Lendy investors as a whole? As I understand it LAG was being setup prior to the administration of Lendy.
There was also a forum member earlier this year who was organising a class action against Lendy to force the repayment of the model 1 loans, and had quite a few lenders interested enough to make further enquiries with the law firm being proposed. (I've no idea how far that legal action progressed, but my concerns that it would force Lendy into voluntary administration were dismissed as "rubbish" when I expressed them in a series of PM's at the time.)
I have no idea the extent to which those behind LAG are the same individuals that were organising an 'action group' earlier this year to force the model 1 loans to be repaid even though it might force Lendy into administration to the detriment of model 2 loan holders. A random selection of lenders for the CLB would have avoided any such concerns (i.e. 5 names picked from a hat containing the nominees) and would have been preferable to RSM's own original proposal of the 5 largest lenders, given some of those may have had "more money than sense".
Whilst LAG is almost certainly a cause for good in general terms, it is not great that no-one outside of LAG (despite nominating themselves) has been permitted to join the CLB to act as a check & balance. In an ideal world, the CLB should have comprised of people who only have model 2 loans, to avoid any conflict of interest with respect to model 1 holdings which will benefit from the deductions from the model 2 loans.
All of that said, I'm somewhat ambivalent as I fear the CLB's main role in the eyes of RSM is to rubber stamp (on behalf of all lenders) what has already been agreed between Grant Thornton & RSM based on the legal advice already sought regarding the fee deductions from model 2 loans. The prospect of real influence is I fear just an illusion.
Irrespective of the actual motives of LAG, if they do end up rubber stamping the massive deductons from the model 2 loans (as in practical terms they may have little option but to do so in the end), the "stupid mismanagement from RSM" as you put it is very likely to result in legal challenges against RSM/Grant Thornton by HNW lenders who may feel a higher recovery of their loans would have been possible if the CLB had been appointed as per the intent emailed to all lenders. So, I'm afriad, its yet more costs that RSM will rack up in defending the claims.
Maybe LAG should renounce one of their 5 seats on the CLB to remove some of the risk of this being challenged in the courts.
Like most longer term lenders at Lendy, I do have some model 1 loans, representing perhaps 10% of my account balance. However, as a small percentage of the total, I like most lenders would benefit from lower deductions on the model 2 loans rather than a full recovery of the model 1 loans. But there are a few individuals (i.e. those progressing the class action earlier this year) that will benefit from larger deductions on the model 2 loans to provide fuller recovery on their model 1 loans. LAG has nothing to do with the proposed legal action against Model 1 loans. Totally different people/action group with totally different goals. The genesis of LAG was started by wuzimu here: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13628/lendy-action-group-thoughtsThe role of the CLB (and indeed creditors committee) isn't to rubber stamp anything in regards to deductions from loans. These decisions are made by lawyers and rubber-stamped by judges in courts. The role of these committees are purely advisory and have very little sway - many people here seem to significantly over-estimate their level of influence. The majority of the CLB are all experienced, prominent and long-term posters from this forum who volunteered to put themselves forward. The others are people who can help in other ways such as political or legal support (which will be much-needed). Regardless, LAG has never been about individuals (as you will see shortly as big changes are afoot) and constantly engages with all types of Lendy investors from across the spectrum to get their views on various matters. Efforts have been made via PM to engage with an Administrator of this forum to get their point of view and discuss proposed ways forward for both Lendy and Collateral but so far no response has been received. These questions could have been asked directly - we don't bite! 
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 24, 2019 10:55:09 GMT
LAG has nothing to do with the proposed legal action against Model 1 loans. Totally different people/action group with totally different goals. The genesis of LAG was started by wuzimu here: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13628/lendy-action-group-thoughtsThe role of the CLB (and indeed creditors committee) isn't to rubber stamp anything in regards to deductions from loans. These decisions are made by lawyers and rubber-stamped by judges in courts. The role of these committees are purely advisory and have very little sway - many people here seem to significantly over-estimate their level of influence. The majority of the CLB are all experienced, prominent and long-term posters from this forum who volunteered to put themselves forward. The others are people who can help in other ways such as political or legal support (which will be much-needed). Regardless, LAG has never been about individuals (as you will see shortly as big changes are afoot) and constantly engages with all types of Lendy investors from across the spectrum to get their views on various matters. Efforts have been made via PM to engage with an Administrator of this forum to get their point of view and discuss proposed ways forward for both Lendy and Collateral but so far no response has been received. These questions could have been asked directly - we don't bite! The decisions are made by the Administrators. They can ask a judge to make some a decision but I haven't heard about any court decision regarding the Lendy administration yet. Two questions I hope will be able to answer 1) When are the Administrators going to provide a detailed breakdown what happened with recovered money? 2) What is LAG going to do about the unfair waterfall rules?
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 24, 2019 15:52:19 GMT
Leaving aside this stupid mismanagement from RSM (We all know that RSM, BDO and the likes are no more than second tier bean counters and proven incompetent), is there any reason to think that LAG has an agenda that is not aligned with the common interest of Lendy investors as a whole? LAG seem to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to ensure any other possible voices on the CLB are drowned out, both the overt (putting up their list of preferred candidates and encouraging their members to "vote" for them), and whatever private lobbying they succeeded in doing to change the entire basis of how the committee was formed to one they could control.
(e.g. if they merely wanted to ensure that a CLB existed and could represent their members views, only 3 members were required...)
What other voices there may have been on the CLB is a matter of pure conjecture, but the very fact that LAG went to so much trouble to ensure they were silenced worries me a little.
I recognise that this body will have relatively little "power" as such, but ultimately, the courts can only decide matters that are put before them, and if none of those 5 members raise any important points that a major investor with no affiliation to LAG may have raised, this could result in a worse outcome for all of us.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Nov 25, 2019 9:55:54 GMT
Well I self nominated for this as I thought that was how it was going down, they never replied to me to ask how much I had in the loans. May be they just wanted to get it done as cheaply and quickly as possible which I'm all for. The LAG went to lengths to secure all the nominations, organising their vote to spread it across the 5 people. They behave like a clique. Hopefully a benign one.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 25, 2019 13:22:25 GMT
Well I self nominated for this as I thought that was how it was going down, they never replied to me to ask how much I had in the loans. May be they just wanted to get it done as cheaply and quickly as possible which I'm all for. The LAG went to lengths to secure all the nominations, organising their vote to spread it across the 5 people. They behave like a clique. Hopefully a benign one. On the "stated in advance" method of deciding members, my reasonable assumption was that if they received more than 5 nominations, they'd check how much each nominee had in the loans directly against their own database, rather than asking the investors themselves...
If your amount invested is sufficiently high that you reasonably expect that not all 5 of the accepted nominations would have a larger investment amount, it might be a good idea to challenge them regarding how or if the selection process changed, and report back on their response/justification.
The appearance it gives is that the nominated persons are shills who will act on behalf of the LAG leaders given that the main controlling influencers of the LAG are ineligible due to already being on the CC. It seems to me to undermine the spirit of that restriction, even if it's complying with the letter of it. I hope I'm wrong, and that the process of choosing which 5 LAG members would be nominated had more to it than just the LAG leaders' say-so.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 25, 2019 15:14:54 GMT
Quiet possibly, but part of the problem is knowing what has actually happened. Information from RSM was that there were merely going to be self-nominees. However, from posters here it seemed the LAG was organising it’s members to vote, presumably for named candidates/self-nominees – it seems from RSM’s latest communique on the outcome there was indeed a "vote". Or was that just a bad communication, and the 5 LAG members were co-incidentally the self-nominees with the 5 largest holdings? I have asked for clarification. sl75 , for me it’s not just a matter of whether the outcome would’ve been different, it’s transparency and treating all investors fairly. I fail to see how RSM can justify changing the procedure /ground rules part way through and only informing a sub-set of investors who have clearly benefited from it, if that is what happened. If I had been given the opportunity to vote and the outcome was the same then I wouldn’t have grounds for complaint. However, who knows what the outcome would have been if every investor had been informed who all the nominees were and then allowed to vote, it may have been more equitable for all potential nominees. For once I think BDO did a far better and more transparent job than RSM appear to have, and I don't expect the cost would have been much different. I think it was the votes weighted by the voter's holding wasn't it?
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 25, 2019 15:20:42 GMT
LAG seem to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to ensure any other possible voices on the CLB are drowned out, both the overt (putting up their list of preferred candidates and encouraging their members to "vote" for them), and whatever private lobbying they succeeded in doing to change the entire basis of how the committee was formed to one they could control.
.. You might argue that RSM have screwed up the voting procedure (not a surprise judging by kyc etc), but I fail to understand how LAG could have encouraged non LAG members to stand
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 25, 2019 15:30:30 GMT
LAG seem to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to ensure any other possible voices on the CLB are drowned out, both the overt (putting up their list of preferred candidates and encouraging their members to "vote" for them), and whatever private lobbying they succeeded in doing to change the entire basis of how the committee was formed to one they could control.
.. You might argue that RSM have screwed up the voting procedure (not a surprise judging by kyc etc), but I fail to understand how LAG could have encouraged non LAG members to stand They wouldn't...
... but by successfully lobbying for the selection mechanism to be changed to one that involves "voting" (using a voting mechanism about which only LAG members were informed), and then rigging the vote so that their 5 selected members fill all available slots, they appear to have ensured that even if any non-members stood, they could not be selected by the modified selection process.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Nov 25, 2019 15:44:38 GMT
Quiet possibly, but part of the problem is knowing what has actually happened. Information from RSM was that there were merely going to be self-nominees. However, from posters here it seemed the LAG was organising it’s members to vote, presumably for named candidates/self-nominees – it seems from RSM’s latest communique on the outcome there was indeed a "vote". Or was that just a bad communication, and the 5 LAG members were co-incidentally the self-nominees with the 5 largest holdings? I have asked for clarification. sl75 , for me it’s not just a matter of whether the outcome would’ve been different, it’s transparency and treating all investors fairly. I fail to see how RSM can justify changing the procedure /ground rules part way through and only informing a sub-set of investors who have clearly benefited from it, if that is what happened. If I had been given the opportunity to vote and the outcome was the same then I wouldn’t have grounds for complaint. However, who knows what the outcome would have been if every investor had been informed who all the nominees were and then allowed to vote, it may have been more equitable for all potential nominees. For once I think BDO did a far better and more transparent job than RSM appear to have, and I don't expect the cost would have been much different. I think it was the votes weighted by the voter's holding wasn't it?
In that case I must have missed one of RSM's emails, can you give the date and time of the email which advised of that please shimself or post it here?
In Edit: Or anyone who has a copy of this please, as I'm trying to keep a complete record of RSM communiques to all Lendy investors in the Significant Information thread - p2pindependentforum.com/post/329351/thread
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 25, 2019 17:42:44 GMT
LAG has nothing to do with the proposed legal action against Model 1 loans. Totally different people/action group with totally different goals. The genesis of LAG was started by wuzimu here: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13628/lendy-action-group-thoughtsThe role of the CLB (and indeed creditors committee) isn't to rubber stamp anything in regards to deductions from loans. These decisions are made by lawyers and rubber-stamped by judges in courts. The role of these committees are purely advisory and have very little sway - many people here seem to significantly over-estimate their level of influence. The majority of the CLB are all experienced, prominent and long-term posters from this forum who volunteered to put themselves forward. The others are people who can help in other ways such as political or legal support (which will be much-needed). Regardless, LAG has never been about individuals (as you will see shortly as big changes are afoot) and constantly engages with all types of Lendy investors from across the spectrum to get their views on various matters. Efforts have been made via PM to engage with an Administrator of this forum to get their point of view and discuss proposed ways forward for both Lendy and Collateral but so far no response has been received. These questions could have been asked directly - we don't bite! A PM actually devoid of any proposals concerning Lendy and Collateral. If these ideas or “proposals” relate to the operation of the P2PIF then I suggest you make them to the whole team - dan1 ; df ; GSV3MIaC ; mrclondon ; star dust and Ton ⓉⓞⓃ . We're happy to listen and await your PM with interest – we don’t bite either. 😊
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 25, 2019 18:34:06 GMT
LAG has nothing to do with the proposed legal action against Model 1 loans. Totally different people/action group with totally different goals. The genesis of LAG was started by wuzimu here: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13628/lendy-action-group-thoughtsThe role of the CLB (and indeed creditors committee) isn't to rubber stamp anything in regards to deductions from loans. These decisions are made by lawyers and rubber-stamped by judges in courts. The role of these committees are purely advisory and have very little sway - many people here seem to significantly over-estimate their level of influence. The majority of the CLB are all experienced, prominent and long-term posters from this forum who volunteered to put themselves forward. The others are people who can help in other ways such as political or legal support (which will be much-needed). Regardless, LAG has never been about individuals (as you will see shortly as big changes are afoot) and constantly engages with all types of Lendy investors from across the spectrum to get their views on various matters. Efforts have been made via PM to engage with an Administrator of this forum to get their point of view and discuss proposed ways forward for both Lendy and Collateral but so far no response has been received. These questions could have been asked directly - we don't bite! A PM actually devoid of any proposals concerning Lendy and Collateral. If these ideas or “proposals” relate to the operation of the P2PIF then I suggest you make them to the whole team - dan1 ; df ; GSV3MIaC ; mrclondon ; star dust and Ton ⓉⓞⓃ . We're happy to listen and await your PM with interest – we don’t bite either. 😊 It doesn't relate to the operation of P2PIF it was on a personal basis so there is no need to discuss with the whole team. Thanks anyway! 😊
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Nov 25, 2019 20:55:13 GMT
I would like to express my gratitude to the LAG & CLB who are clearly giving up their own private unpaid time to try to assist investors, such as myself.
Not sure why some forum users are determined to allege conspiracies theories aimed at the members of LAG and / or CLB.
Please give them a chance. SLXR
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 25, 2019 22:29:31 GMT
I would like to express my gratitude to the LAG & CLB who are clearly giving up their own private unpaid time to try to assist investors, such as myself. Not sure why some forum users are determined to allege conspiracies theories aimed at the members of LAG and / or CLB. Please give them a chance. SLXR Ah, Showing your true colours. Clearly u are part of the conspiracy and acting as a shill promoter of LAG/CLB 
BTW, have always liked your A10 Thunderbolt/Warthog piccie. In my top 5 all time favourite aircraft. A complete kick ass no messing does what it says on the tin aircraft. It was good to see they reversed the decision to retire it.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 26, 2019 9:46:04 GMT
Could someone from LAG answer the questions below?
1) When are the Administrators going to provide a detailed breakdown what happened with recovered money?
2) What is LAG going to do about the unfair waterfall rules?
|
|
