|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 22, 2019 10:11:35 GMT
With regard to who the legal advise was going to be shared with. There was something on the FSAG page (FB or forum ?) where it was asking for donations, where it stated that the legal advice would only be shared with those who had contributed. I suspect that is what some have picked up on. Personally however I got the impression that was an initial statement that had simply been badly formed and had been moved away: if nothing else it would be a bit "rich" to have asked people to get behind a specific proxy and nomination to the CC, but then not have shared the legal advise they would be receiving.
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141 
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Nov 22, 2019 10:20:33 GMT
Yes, I noted this too before I donated, but can no longer find it. Not a problem though.
|
|
Garage246
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 209
|
Post by Garage246 on Nov 22, 2019 12:18:13 GMT
With regard to who the legal advise was going to be shared with. There was something on the FSAG page (FB or forum ?) where it was asking for donations, where it stated that the legal advice would only be shared with those who had contributed. I suspect that is what some have picked up on. Personally however I got the impression that was an initial statement that had simply been badly formed and had been moved away: if nothing else it would be a bit "rich" to have asked people to get behind a specific proxy and nomination to the CC, but then not have shared the legal advise they would be receiving.
Thnx and noted. The legal advice is relevant to all lenders insofar as the FSAG mission statement covers all lenders (no group or sub-group is preferred in any way in what we want to do). When we raised money from Go Fund Me, we received an awful lot of anonymous donations from small and large investors who decided they would not enter their name, so we don't know exactly who supplied what anyway. So on that basis we are looking to post a summary for all lenders of some sort and working on something now. Some may say that it is unfair that some donated and others didn't so why should we all get it. But we have to be pragmatic in my view and see the bigger picture, the cost of the advice is peanuts compared to the amount invested (BTW I put a sizeable chunk of the costs in myself as did the other FSAG guys). Should we need further advice I hope that the donations will even out across other lenders, but we are entirely reliant on good will from all here. Sadly we just don't have the time or resource to do it differently. The advice is focused and all pretty clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Nov 22, 2019 12:43:38 GMT
Hi All,
I'm back online and much happier now having read the latest posts from Garage246 of FSAG, on this forum.
I definitely did read that only subscribers to the fund would receive the legal advice and that was a primary reason for making a donation early at the 0.1% level as requested, and I also sent off the proxy etc. once I had satisfied myself that MuchoP2P was a suitable CC member in all the circumstances.
Also I have a strong view that more funds will be needed on the basis that IMHO, FSAG should err on the side of caution and keep the lawyers fully appraised and take advice if anything is unclear or there may be scope to improve "our" position. And of course to take the lawyer to any decision making meeting other than routine.
So I won't be donating to the next fund raising until I feel those who have not donated so far have sufficiently paid their way.
My current outstanding concern is not understanding the most recent post from sb and I hope sb finds time to clarify as requested in my post at the time.
Nothing is perfect in a fire fight, but it seems FSAG are doing a great job for "us"
BTW regarding anonymous donations being an issue for refunds, I do understand this to a point, but when I made my donation I was advised by the site that even though I requested anonymity, my name would be given to the fund raising organiser - it would not be shown publicly.
And of course we are requested to advise FSAG by pm of our donations which I did.
So all in all it should be possible to process a refund imho, however the work involved is another matter for these small amounts. I'm not interested in a refund but am interested in a reasonable process and it seems ok to me.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Nov 22, 2019 13:04:31 GMT
I wonder what proportion of total lenders are aware of whats going on here.
When I did know, I had to ask how to contribute, which I did when the fund was just over £9000.
Maybe, if our representatives can get a complete list of lenders, they can send them all an email.
|
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Nov 22, 2019 14:43:20 GMT
I wonder what proportion of total lenders are aware of whats going on here. When I did know, I had to ask how to contribute, which I did when the fund was just over £9000. Maybe, if our representatives can get a complete list of lenders, they can send them all an email. I certainly know of one investor, a relative of mine, who has NEVER read ANY THREAD on this forum. I did tell them it existed & what info it contained on a few occasions. They didn't know anything about FS going into admin until an email arrived from the administrator
|
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Nov 22, 2019 14:45:07 GMT
Also to add for transparency, I will be voting to accept the administrators proposal to get things moving, but as I am also standing for Creditors Committee, if I get voted on I will be challenging aspects of this, including trying to ensure that administrator fees are taken from FS pot first and foremost and that they are at a fair rate (noting though that the administrators have to be paid or work stops). I will also not be supporting the dissolution of the trust assets, but will push the point that lenders are unsecured creditors for their losses after recoveries from the trust assets. Those are my cards on the table! When you say you will not be supporting the dissolution of the trust assets, please could you clarify that you won't be abstaining and that you Will attend and vote in favour of maintaining the trust structures.
|
|
Garage246
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 209
|
Post by Garage246 on Nov 22, 2019 17:22:10 GMT
Also to add for transparency, I will be voting to accept the administrators proposal to get things moving, but as I am also standing for Creditors Committee, if I get voted on I will be challenging aspects of this, including trying to ensure that administrator fees are taken from FS pot first and foremost and that they are at a fair rate (noting though that the administrators have to be paid or work stops). I will also not be supporting the dissolution of the trust assets, but will push the point that lenders are unsecured creditors for their losses after recoveries from the trust assets. Those are my cards on the table! When you say you will not be supporting the dissolution of the trust assets, please could you clarify that you won't be abstaining and that you Will attend and vote in favour of maintaining the trust structures. Yep - for total clarity and unless we get our own legal opinion to the contrary, I will be resisting any attempt to dissolve the trust structures, so actively positioning/voting against any attempt to do so on the basis of the current advice we have that this is NOT in the best interests of lenders. It may be that the creditors committee blocks any attempt to dissolve the trust and the administrators obtain a court decision which goes against us, but we will have the opportunity to fight that and state our case if we get to that point. The other issue may be whether the trust status is defective - we don't know yet until we get into the nitty gritty of the documentation. However, to be absolutely clear, the current advice from our solicitors is to ensure that the trust structure is maintained.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Nov 22, 2019 17:37:09 GMT
I note we are being told not to claim the full amount on our 'proof of dept form'.
So I entered. Main Account. £ current investment figure, plus £ accrued interest figure, plus future interest (no figure),
less any defaults & fees (no figures).
And the same for IFISA account.
All on the same form in section 4.
I answered question 5 to 8 saying 'As shown on website'.
I attached breakdown of investments from my account.
Emailed it all to fundingsecure@cg-recovery.com, yesterday.
Just had automated response so far. They can see what we hold anyway.
Never been one to worry about conforming.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Nov 23, 2019 10:23:46 GMT
I'm just in the process of catching up with developments here but I'd just like to raise a observation regarding GoFundMe. As I understand it, it is not possible to make anonymous donations because the name must match that of the registered card holder. According to support.gofundme.com/hc/en-gb/articles/203687114-Donating-Anonymously ... "Please note that the organiser and beneficiary will always be able to see your name and any comment you left." I don't understand a previous comment on here regarding not knowing who donated what? Is my understanding wrong? If not, what's happening with that data? It's of interest because this forum considered KYC as a way to prevent shills, multiple accounts, etc and received quite a backlash but I guess at this time needs must. |
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Nov 23, 2019 17:35:47 GMT
I'm just in the process of catching up with developments here but I'd just like to raise a observation regarding GoFundMe. As I understand it, it is not possible to make anonymous donations because the name must match that of the registered card holder. According to support.gofundme.com/hc/en-gb/articles/203687114-Donating-Anonymously ... "Please note that the organiser and beneficiary will always be able to see your name and any comment you left." I don't understand a previous comment on here regarding not knowing who donated what? Is my understanding wrong? If not, what's happening with that data? It's of interest because this forum considered KYC as a way to prevent shills, multiple accounts, etc and received quite a backlash but I guess at this time needs must. We can see data on who donates what amount. It is tabulated for future use in the event that anyone claims to have donated and they did not! But surprisingly enough, there is one donation that I believe must have been made via a pre-paid card, as the name is anonymous, or should I say fictitious, unless someone had an incredible sense of humour and changed their name via Deed Poll.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Nov 23, 2019 17:40:40 GMT
Hi All, I'm back online and much happier now having read the latest posts from Garage246 of FSAG, on this forum. I definitely did read that only subscribers to the fund would receive the legal advice and that was a primary reason for making a donation early at the 0.1% level as requested, and I also sent off the proxy etc. once I had satisfied myself that MuchoP2P was a suitable CC member in all the circumstances. Also I have a strong view that more funds will be needed on the basis that IMHO, FSAG should err on the side of caution and keep the lawyers fully appraised and take advice if anything is unclear or there may be scope to improve "our" position. And of course to take the lawyer to any decision making meeting other than routine. So I won't be donating to the next fund raising until I feel those who have not donated so far have sufficiently paid their way. My current outstanding concern is not understanding the most recent post from sb and I hope sb finds time to clarify as requested in my post at the time. Nothing is perfect in a fire fight, but it seems FSAG are doing a great job for "us" BTW regarding anonymous donations being an issue for refunds, I do understand this to a point, but when I made my donation I was advised by the site that even though I requested anonymity, my name would be given to the fund raising organiser - it would not be shown publicly. And of course we are requested to advise FSAG by pm of our donations which I did. So all in all it should be possible to process a refund imho, however the work involved is another matter for these small amounts. I'm not interested in a refund but am interested in a reasonable process and it seems ok to me. It is possible to process a refund as GFM hold the info of where the donations came from, and will refund if needed. We as organisers do not see the source of funds from those that donate, only their names, amounts, times, messages and minor data.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Nov 23, 2019 18:31:40 GMT
FCA website says -
'The administrators, CG Recovery Ltd, are now responsible for the business of Funding Secure Ltd. Among other things this means that they will seek to operate the P2P platform and credit investors with return of capital and interest as per the terms you have signed up to.'
They need to tell the administrators that, not us !!!
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Nov 24, 2019 13:37:11 GMT
FCA website says - 'The administrators, CG Recovery Ltd, are now responsible for the business of Funding Secure Ltd. Among other things this means that they will seek to operate the P2P platform and credit investors with return of capital and interest as per the terms you have signed up to.' They need to tell the administrators that, not us !!! The more I think about the above FCA statement, the more I feel they have supported our case, against the administrators with regard to our standing as investors. They made the statement before they knew they had failed to regulate FS properly. I am not up to date with the legal proceedings, but should we be taking it further?
|
|
wishy
Posts: 33
Likes: 42
|
Post by wishy on Nov 24, 2019 13:58:43 GMT
My First Post - Just my opinion.
I believe that FS investors should not accept the administrators proposals as they currently stand.
1) The idea of accepting the proposals to get things moving and hoping that there will be an opportunity to change the contents of the proposals later seems a very weak negotiating position. Surely the time to negotiate something is BEFORE accepting it.
2) The idea of equal pro-rata responsibility for the Administration costs sounds superfically all fair square and equal until you stop and think about the reality of the situation. Funding Secure has been mis-selling investments to members of the general public. The investors are not equally responsible for the mess created by Funding Secure's mis-selling and overall mis-management.
3) It seems likely that the issue of who is entitled to what will go to a court hearing. It seems reasonable that would include a decision about who should pay for what. I think it is unfair of the Administrators to try and fix the outcome beforehand and investor acceptance of these proposals could be used to influence the courts decision.
|
|
