adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920 
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 14, 2019 7:32:38 GMT
nice thinking that man !
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 14, 2019 8:39:12 GMT
Are you on hotmail? Mine got filtered to junk no I'm not, and have previously got FS emails. Its not gone to my trash either.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 14, 2019 9:51:13 GMT
I think everyone should send the Administrators a list of loans he/she owns so that they can't claim they don't know "who owns what" and try to grab our assets.
|
|
thedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 111
|
Post by thedog on Nov 14, 2019 12:05:18 GMT
I think everyone should send the Administrators a list of loans he/she owns so that they can't claim they don't know "who owns what" and try to grab our assets. I think you may have misunderstood what they are saying. The point they are making is not that there isn't a list of investors.
It is that the Trusts under which FS was Security Trustee for the collateral on our behalf may not have been properly documented and constituted. As such they need to obtain a QC's Opinion and possibly a Court Ruling on how to proceed. As you have rightly pointed out earlier, FS's T&Cs stated they would set up appropriate Trusts but what the Adminstrators are telling us is that it is not clear that FS did so correctly and the Trusts may not therefore function as intended. That would be a (another...) breach of the T&Cs but I'm afraid that doesn't automatically overule any errors in the Trust documents.
(That said, in my experience in resolving ambiguities in legal documents a QC / Court would consider the "intention" of the drafters and that would presumably be as is set out in the T&Cs so hopefully we'd get to the answer we want but it's impossible to tell).
By the way - worth noting that if the Trusts are ambiguous then anyone running off / selling the loan book will encounter this same problem. It is therefore not a reason to reject the Administrators' Proposals. If there is ambiguity in the Trust docs then whoever is running off the book - these Administrators, a different set of Administrators, the Regulators or next-door's-cat - is going to have the same issue and would not be able to proceed without resolving it.
Usual disclaimers apply - I am neither a lawyer not an Insolvency Practitioner and this is not any kind of advice. If you want legal or other advice you have to find someone suitably qualified and pay for it, not read a Board.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 14, 2019 13:12:13 GMT
I think everyone should send the Administrators a list of loans he/she owns so that they can't claim they don't know "who owns what" and try to grab our assets. I think you may have misunderstood what they are saying. The point they are making is not that there isn't a list of investors.
It is that the Trusts under which FS was Security Trustee for the collateral on our behalf may not have been properly documented and constituted. As such they need to obtain a QC's Opinion and possibly a Court Ruling on how to proceed. As you have rightly pointed out earlier, FS's T&Cs stated they would set up appropriate Trusts but what the Adminstrators are telling us is that it is not clear that FS did so correctly and the Trusts may not therefore function as intended. That would be a (another...) breach of the T&Cs but I'm afraid that doesn't automatically overule any errors in the Trust documents.
(That said, in my experience in resolving ambiguities in legal documents a QC / Court would consider the "intention" of the drafters and that would presumably be as is set out in the T&Cs so hopefully we'd get to the answer we want but it's impossible to tell).
By the way - worth noting that if the Trusts are ambiguous then anyone running off / selling the loan book will encounter this same problem. It is therefore not a reason to reject the Administrators' Proposals. If there is ambiguity in the Trust docs then whoever is running off the book - these Administrators, a different set of Administrators, the Regulators or next-door's-cat - is going to have the same issue and would not be able to proceed without resolving it.
Usual disclaimers apply - I am neither a lawyer not an Insolvency Practitioner and this is not any kind of advice. If you want legal or other advice you have to find someone suitably qualified and pay for it, not read a Board.
1) The main reason why it is worth to clearly state ownership of our loans is that they would not be able to claim they didn't know about it when we challenge them taking control of our loans in a court. 2) The report/proposals are not clear why they don't know "who owns what". We are kept completely in dark what is the issue. The documents mention some discussions with a big investors, which rises a question if the idea of having committee is a result of those discussions. It is possible that interests of the big investors are not aligned with interests of small ones. 3) I would be much more comfortable with the whole situation if the issue, if there is one, was decided by a court, not Administrators' lawyers, creditors and a small number of investors, which could be a stitch-up. The proposed route, selecting committee to accept an advice of the Administrators' lawyers seems completely pointless, as any decision reached this way is not binding for investors not in the committee. The administrators need to seek permission of all investors if they plan to claim that loans are owned by FS and investors are creditors.
|
|
thedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 111
|
Post by thedog on Nov 14, 2019 13:55:47 GMT
Hi, The explanation of the "who owns what" issue (Appendix 2 10.d) is in the paragraph immediately following it. Appendix 2 11.
I agree the link between 10.d and 11 could be clearer but that is what the "who owns what" is referring to, 2.11 expands on the phrase "lack of clarity" in 2.10.d.
It is not saying they don't know who investors are.
It is saying that because the documentation was imperfect and investor funds were mingled with company funds the Trust arrangement may not be valid and in that case it may be that rather than the Trustee passing funds to investors directly the funds have to go via the Comapny. (Bad for us as it means others may get a cut).
I tend to agree that the Court is the right place and I suspect it may go there, especially if investors are seen to be losing out because the Trusts were not set up properly as that would be so obviously "unfair".
If it makes you or anyone else feel more comfortable send them your list of investments, won't do any harm  , but the issue in A2 10.d is a legal one explained in A2 11, not a lack of investors.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 14, 2019 14:35:38 GMT
Hi, The explanation of the "who owns what" issue (Appendix 2 10.d) is in the paragraph immediately following it. Appendix 2 11.
I agree the link between 10.d and 11 could be clearer but that is what the "who owns what" is referring to, 2.11 expands on the phrase "lack of clarity" in 2.10.d.
It is not saying they don't know who investors are.
It is saying that because the documentation was imperfect and investor funds were mingled with company funds the Trust arrangement may not be valid and in that case it may be that rather than the Trustee passing funds to investors directly the funds have to go via the Comapny. (Bad for us as it means others may get a cut).
I tend to agree that the Court is the right place and I suspect it may go there, especially if investors are seen to be losing out because the Trusts were not set up properly as that would be so obviously "unfair".
If it makes you or anyone else feel more comfortable send them your list of investments, won't do any harm , but the issue in A2 10.d is a legal one explained in A2 11, not a lack of investors.
I've already read the report/proposals. It is very vague. It is true they don't say they don't know who investors are but they don't say they know either. They say only is it is sometimes unclear who is " properly entitled to receive the benefits of loans". Sending a statement claiming ownership should make it much clearer. If there are errors in legal documents they should be able to fix them quite easily themselves. If a loan agreement is in FS name they can assign it to investors. If there is a problem with a trust deed they can amend it as FS is most likely a settlor of the trust. If the administrators believe problems with docs are not made in error but intentional, then we clearly have a case of a fraud, which is a criminal offence. In this case loans are proceeds of a crime and as such they should be returned to their lawful owners.
|
|
thedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 111
|
Post by thedog on Nov 14, 2019 15:05:04 GMT
Ok - I won't bang on any more about where I see the issue being, I think that's pretty clear!
Hopefully docs can be that easily amended - I'd guess Administrators will want a lot of legal cover (back to the QC, Court etc point) before unilaterally doing so but we will see.
Cheers
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 14, 2019 16:16:26 GMT
Are people sure that we want the administrators administering the loan book for us? Currently it and investors cash is ringfenced. Sounds like the administrators want to in effect remove that ring-fencing and start taking their fees from any proceeds. I am not sure that is in my interests.
What is the point in p2p investors funds being ring fenced if when it comes to it that ring fencing gets ripped up?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 14, 2019 16:29:36 GMT
neither am I - I have read their FAQ and unless I am being thick it says nothing of substance except possibly that loans and creditors are not the same thing...
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,337
Likes: 11,562
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 14, 2019 16:34:00 GMT
Are people sure that we want the administrators administering the loan book for us? Currently it and investors cash is ringfenced. Sounds like the administrators want to in effect remove that ring-fencing and start taking their fees from any proceeds. I am not sure that is in my interests. What is the point in p2p investors funds being ring fenced if when it comes to it that ring fencing gets ripped up? I would assume that the issue is that the cash isn't ringfenced or at least that the fence is incomplete. It always been odd that FS were the charge holder, not a trust or other entity like other platforms. The alternative is that someone else has to administer the loan book for which they will need to be paid - so which is likely to be better, the administrators proposed rates or a commercial third party? Administrators have to be paid from somewhere & if trust assets are the only source then the Beaufort Securities case clearly IIRC indicates they can be tapped.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 14, 2019 16:34:43 GMT
neither am I - I have read their FAQ and unless I am being thick it says nothing of substance except possibly that loans and creditors are not the same thing... Adrian I think its worse than this, I am not even sure that if we agreed to the proposals that other creditors would not have equal or even greater access to the proceeds from the loan book than investors. Actually it's worse than that. They say that apart from the last 5 loans investors are not even the legal beneficiaries. Honestly going down the whole administrator route I honestly can't be bothered with. I have no desire to get updates for two years to then be told there is no money to distribute.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 14, 2019 17:21:57 GMT
Are people sure that we want the administrators administering the loan book for us? Currently it and investors cash is ringfenced. Sounds like the administrators want to in effect remove that ring-fencing and start taking their fees from any proceeds. I am not sure that is in my interests. What is the point in p2p investors funds being ring fenced if when it comes to it that ring fencing gets ripped up? I would assume that the issue is that the cash isn't ringfenced or at least that the fence is incomplete. It always been odd that FS were the charge holder, not a trust or other entity like other platforms. The alternative is that someone else has to administer the loan book for which they will need to be paid - so which is likely to be better, the administrators proposed rates or a commercial third party? Administrators have to be paid from somewhere & if trust assets are the only source then the Beaufort Securities case clearly IIRC indicates they can be tapped. The client money can be tapped only in Special Administration Regime introduced in 2011. I don't think the FS administration is of this type as it is required by law that the appointment of a special administrator is made by a court order.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 14, 2019 17:33:00 GMT
Are people sure that we want the administrators administering the loan book for us? Currently it and investors cash is ringfenced. Sounds like the administrators want to in effect remove that ring-fencing and start taking their fees from any proceeds. I am not sure that is in my interests. What is the point in p2p investors funds being ring fenced if when it comes to it that ring fencing gets ripped up? This could be a reason why they want to go a creditor route. The FS T&Cs allow them to recover direct costs only after a principal amount is repaid, 5% admin fee after the interest is paid.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirpercyblakeney on Nov 14, 2019 20:15:12 GMT
The administrators appear to me to have a pragmatic plan, it is not perfect but they have a way forward that contains, checks and balances as well as limits with identified methods to deal with the uncertainties. Currently no one else does, they have elements, concerns etc, but no working plan or overall strategy. The administrators appear to have done more work in the last 3 weeks than has been done in the last year. They are also governed by a stronger set of rules and regulations that we as investors have hitherto enjoyed. The administrators to date appear to have: 1. Assessed the business, its liabilities and assets. 2. Assessed the entire loan book 3. Identified the contractual uncertainties and proposed a means of reducing / mitigating these. 4. Proposed a means to redeem the investments, including a pragmatic limit on there own fees and hence timescales involved 5. Set up a way forward. Considerations: No one is going to redeem our investments for free, a price needs to be paid. None of us has the experience, knowledge or ability to take on this work. The FCA will not help us, they have no knowledge or experience only policy and most definitely will not part with any money. Time is not on our side, action is required to take control of assets. Given the administrators actions to date and stated plan they have my support. |
|
, but the issue in A2 10.d is a legal one explained in A2 11, not a lack of investors.
