Consultancy Liaison Body (“CLB”)
Jan 29, 2020 17:16:33 GMT
brightspark, wuzimu, and 3 more like this
Post by paul123 on Jan 29, 2020 17:16:33 GMT
My attempt at clarifying some points about CC, CLB and LAG.
The members of the CC did nearly all the LAG work last year including the website and facebook. Towards the end of the year, it became apparent that the members of the CC would only be permitted to discuss matters pertaining to the fate of creditors and if the CC attempted to represent lenders where there was a conflict with creditors then RSM might rightly decide to cancel the CC. I’d imagine most of us lenders are heavy on the Model 2 loans and light (or non-existent) on the (M1) loans and I’m sure the members of the CC are the same but going forward the CC must represent creditors only and keep to their remit of challenging RSM on costs, etc only.
RSM set up the CLB with Grant Thornton, the “conflict administrator” for SSSH (the M2 lenders vehicle). The CLB should be able to help GT on the interests of (M2) lenders. But the CLB lean on GT and GT lean on RSM but will that really work? RSM is the administrator for both “Lendy” *and* SSSH so RSM is still pretty conflicted surely?
The (M2) lenders desperately need someone acting for them and them alone. An entity that will challenge the secret (borrower side) default fees/waterfall and lenders be paid according to what they signed up for, etc. Ultimately this *will* be decided by a court process which is why the LAG “Legal Group” has been formed. It is independent from the CC as it must be. It’s purpose is to represent M2 lenders only and it is lawyering up (sigh) just like RSM is. Details on adjacent thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/16586/lendy-action-group-fund-raise
The members of the CC did nearly all the LAG work last year including the website and facebook. Towards the end of the year, it became apparent that the members of the CC would only be permitted to discuss matters pertaining to the fate of creditors and if the CC attempted to represent lenders where there was a conflict with creditors then RSM might rightly decide to cancel the CC. I’d imagine most of us lenders are heavy on the Model 2 loans and light (or non-existent) on the (M1) loans and I’m sure the members of the CC are the same but going forward the CC must represent creditors only and keep to their remit of challenging RSM on costs, etc only.
RSM set up the CLB with Grant Thornton, the “conflict administrator” for SSSH (the M2 lenders vehicle). The CLB should be able to help GT on the interests of (M2) lenders. But the CLB lean on GT and GT lean on RSM but will that really work? RSM is the administrator for both “Lendy” *and* SSSH so RSM is still pretty conflicted surely?
The (M2) lenders desperately need someone acting for them and them alone. An entity that will challenge the secret (borrower side) default fees/waterfall and lenders be paid according to what they signed up for, etc. Ultimately this *will* be decided by a court process which is why the LAG “Legal Group” has been formed. It is independent from the CC as it must be. It’s purpose is to represent M2 lenders only and it is lawyering up (sigh) just like RSM is. Details on adjacent thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/16586/lendy-action-group-fund-raise
