|
|
Post by FSAG Forum on Nov 18, 2019 19:12:18 GMT
Sorry if this has been covered already but does anyone know if you need to complete the proof of debt form if you aren’t planning to attend the creditors meeting? Thanks. This really depends on how much you've got invested & whether or not you want the ex directors of FS to get a proportion of your money. In theory, you won't instantly be losing the right to your money if you don't complete the forms, but you will have a much better chance of getting a better payout if you proxy your vote to the FSAG candidate for the Creditor's Committee.
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 638 
Likes: 866
|
Post by 09dolphin on Nov 18, 2019 19:20:37 GMT
If lenders complete the forms as the administrators request are we not saying we are creditors? To claim we are creditors seems to me to significantly weaken our position when we actually have a 1st charge against an asset - unless of course a 1st charge hasn't been registered.
Obviously I could be wrong but what I do know is that creditors have a very weak case, although a well defined legal case, to claim against assets when a company is in administration. Creditors normally receive a proportion of the amount they claim which may be secondary to other claims.
Personally I think people with loans should seek their own legal advice rather than rely on administraors
I've not read this anywhere on this forum but I am personally happy to commit 1 -1.5% of my "invested" money to a "fighting fund".
What say other investors
|
|
|
|
Post by FSAG Forum on Nov 18, 2019 20:38:11 GMT
This is why the administrators are saying that lenders MAY not qualify for their votes to be counted towards nominations for the Creditor's Committee. FSAG have been advised to complete forms in a certain way that will allow us to claim a proportion of our investments towards CC nominations without jeopardising our rights to any trusts; if they exist.
On the second part you are correct, the problem being that some of the ex directors have floating charges over the company, so if we do not fight and Counsel/the courts rule that the trusts are not in our favour, these floating charges could be paid out of our money!
FSAG have taken legal advise & wish to engage this specialist solicitor, who has experience of other P2P collapses, but this will need funding, could this be the fighting fund that you are seeking?
|
|
|
|
Post by highroller1 on Nov 19, 2019 5:11:14 GMT
Sorry if this has been covered already but does anyone know if you need to complete the proof of debt form if you aren’t planning to attend the creditors meeting? Thanks. This really depends on how much you've got invested & whether or not you want the ex directors of FS to get a proportion of your money. In theory, you won't instantly be losing the right to your money if you don't complete the forms, but you will have a much better chance of getting a better payout if you proxy your vote to the FSAG candidate for the Creditor's Committee. A proportion of what money? The assets of the company or our personal loans? Just how much in assets does the company even hold that could be payable to creditors?
|
|
|
|
Post by FSAG Forum on Nov 19, 2019 10:38:01 GMT
According to the Administrator's Proposals, there is some doubt as to the beneficiaries of the loan trusts, it could be decided that the whole lot (our money) belongs to the company, in which case the directors would get their £3m back before the left overs are shared out between us and the other unsecured creditors. If FSAG can secure 3 sets on the Creditor's Committee it is much less likely that this will happen. Read the 8th post of this thread for further details. |
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920 
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 19, 2019 12:13:00 GMT
I am not commenting here on the legal aspect as it is all Demis Roussos to me - if the above is correct I will blow a gasket and I don't think I will be the only one. Hopefully FS are at fault for not managing the loan book and the winding down procedure correctly and we loan holders are in front of these amateurs in the credit queue...
|
|
|
|
Post by FSAG Forum on Nov 19, 2019 12:32:27 GMT
The worst bit is, that it could be because FS have screwed up, that the director's could get their money back before us!
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 19, 2019 14:39:59 GMT
The worst bit is, that it could be because FS have screwed up, that the director's could get their money back before us! This is one of the reasons why at present I cannot agree to the administrators proposal and am firstly pursuing the FCA. Simply green-lighting the proposals to take away ring fencing (not clear what is ring-fenced but anyway) which the FCA required before we even have any idea what the proceeds will be or whether other creditors will have first dibs on our money is not the route I wish to go down at present. I totally understand the argument that there are not many other options for investors. However I am very wary that going down the administrators route could end in very little to any recovery for investors and allow the FCA to absolve themselves of responsibilities. I am also aware that we need the approach to winding down the loanbook to be agreed in a timely manner, but agreeing to the administrators proposals at present, with no guide of the forecast outcome, is not for me. I personally am going down the route of requesting the FCA to implement an effective wind-down plan if they were negligent in ensuring that FS had one. A proposal to just get the administrators to do it seems not fit for purpose at all. I also think they should be responsible for refunding investors for losses incurred due to FS not having controls which the FCA should have ensured were in place as a regulated company. I have submitted a complaint to the FCA and am waiting for the outcome of this to be provided. In the interim I have decided to not recognise myself having any relationship with FS' administrator and to not recognise any claim by the administrator to proceeds from recoveries on FS investments. I am definitely not giving advice and others need to make decisions based on their circumstance.
|
|
wuzimu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 735
|
Post by wuzimu on Nov 19, 2019 14:58:21 GMT
pip while I share the sentiments you've expressed, the fact is the FCA will not engage with you and will find excuse to defer any complaint you make years into the future.
The fact is there will be a meeting of creditors next week and there will be a vote, FCA have santified that.
The composition of the elected CC will frame the course of the FS administration and anybody who doesn't like it is in for a very expensive and probably futile effort to challenge the process once its started.
The only real practical chance FS lenders have to maybe improve the outcome, is to assert their claim to be a creditor aswell as a beneficiary of trust assets in the voting process and co-ordinate through FSAG to hopefully get 3 lender-creditors on the CC.
It is only by grouping together and taking firm actions within the realms of what is possible can lenders improve their position.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 19, 2019 15:45:09 GMT
pip while I share the sentiments you've expressed, the fact is the FCA will not engage with you and will find excuse to defer any complaint you make years into the future.
The fact is there will be a meeting of creditors next week and there will be a vote, FCA have santified that.
The composition of the elected CC will frame the course of the FS administration and anybody who doesn't like it is in for a very expensive and probably futile effort to challenge the process once its started.
The only real practical chance FS lenders have to maybe improve the outcome, is to assert their claim to be a creditor aswell as a beneficiary of trust assets in the voting process and co-ordinate through FSAG to hopefully get 3 lender-creditors on the CC.
It is only by grouping together and taking firm actions within the realms of what is possible can lenders improve their position.
Being on the creditors committee won’t change the outcome. Any distributions are determined by law once investors agree to remove ring fencing of assets in trust (no idea if anything actually sits in trust but anyway). I get your views and understand your approach.
|
|
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 19, 2019 17:07:03 GMT
pip while I share the sentiments you've expressed, the fact is the FCA will not engage with you and will find excuse to defer any complaint you make years into the future.
The fact is there will be a meeting of creditors next week and there will be a vote, FCA have santified that.
The composition of the elected CC will frame the course of the FS administration and anybody who doesn't like it is in for a very expensive and probably futile effort to challenge the process once its started.
The only real practical chance FS lenders have to maybe improve the outcome, is to assert their claim to be a creditor aswell as a beneficiary of trust assets in the voting process and co-ordinate through FSAG to hopefully get 3 lender-creditors on the CC.
It is only by grouping together and taking firm actions within the realms of what is possible can lenders improve their position.
Being on the creditors committee won’t change the outcome. Any distributions are determined by law once investors agree to remove ring fencing of assets in trust (no idea if anything actually sits in trust but anyway). I get your views and understand your approach. Sorry but I'm afraid you are almost certainly wasting your time. If you look at Collateral & Lendy you will see that if the FCA has an enforcement investigation underway, which they almost certainly will have give the regulatory issues raised, then there is a moratorium on even responding to compliants let alone taking any actions. I am slightly confused by your statement regarding ringfencing being removed. AIUI the FSAG position is to seek to retain ringfencing on trust assets other than a modest fee for the administrators. The CC is the only way investors have any chance of having any input, even if ultimately the power rests with the administrators. Whether you recognise the administrators claim or not, they will still proceed as per their mandate, subject to court approval possibly
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 19, 2019 20:09:37 GMT
Being on the creditors committee won’t change the outcome. Any distributions are determined by law once investors agree to remove ring fencing of assets in trust (no idea if anything actually sits in trust but anyway). I get your views and understand your approach. Sorry but I'm afraid you are almost certainly wasting your time. If you look at Collateral & Lendy you will see that if the FCA has an enforcement investigation underway, which they almost certainly will have give the regulatory issues raised, then there is a moratorium on even responding to compliants let alone taking any actions. I am slightly confused by your statement regarding ringfencing being removed. AIUI the FSAG position is to seek to retain ringfencing on trust assets other than a modest fee for the administrators. The CC is the only way investors have any chance of having any input, even if ultimately the power rests with the administrators. Whether you recognise the administrators claim or not, they will still proceed as per their mandate, subject to court approval possibly If the administrators proposals are approved then all pressure on the fca will disappear. They will bat away any investor concerns to the administrator. If the administrator proposals are rejected the administrator will probably resign (as no fees available to them) and investors can say to the fca look you regulated this business you need to ensure that it is wound down appropriately. Look I understand your arguments. The thing is, after reading through the administrators report and seeing the outcome of other administrations, I highly doubt whether investors will get anything with the administrators proposals. I see what the administrators get from it, I see what creditors of FS get from it but all investors seem to get is a spin at the roulette wheel. The proposals to me are not one i support and I can’t see any basis in law for the administrators of FS to take control of a trust which should be ringfenced from them. This applies even if a majority of investors vote for it. As always up to people to make their own decisions I am not giving advice.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Nov 19, 2019 21:19:39 GMT
You see it as a spin of the roulette wheel, but many others would say relying on the good nature of the FCA to sort the mess would be more akin to Russian roulette.
Either way, I do agree with your general premise that we're all just making the best guess we can right now and hopefully we get the best outcome possible.
|
|
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 20, 2019 0:21:40 GMT
Sorry but I'm afraid you are almost certainly wasting your time. If you look at Collateral & Lendy you will see that if the FCA has an enforcement investigation underway, which they almost certainly will have give the regulatory issues raised, then there is a moratorium on even responding to compliants let alone taking any actions. I am slightly confused by your statement regarding ringfencing being removed. AIUI the FSAG position is to seek to retain ringfencing on trust assets other than a modest fee for the administrators. The CC is the only way investors have any chance of having any input, even if ultimately the power rests with the administrators. Whether you recognise the administrators claim or not, they will still proceed as per their mandate, subject to court approval possibly If the administrators proposals are approved then all pressure on the fca will disappear. They will bat away any investor concerns to the administrator. If the administrator proposals are rejected the administrator will probably resign (as no fees available to them) and investors can say to the fca look you regulated this business you need to ensure that it is wound down appropriately. Look I understand your arguments. The thing is, after reading through the administrators report and seeing the outcome of other administrations, I highly doubt whether investors will get anything with the administrators proposals. I see what the administrators get from it, I see what creditors of FS get from it but all investors seem to get is a spin at the roulette wheel. The proposals to me are not one i support and I can’t see any basis in law for the administrators of FS to take control of a trust which should be ringfenced from them. This applies even if a majority of investors vote for it. As always up to people to make their own decisions I am not giving advice. I very much doubt the pressure will come off the FCA if the administrators proposals are accepted. No evidence of that happening with all the other financial failures on the FCA watch where admin proposals were accepted. If the admins proposals are rejected, then they may present revised proposals, they can apply to the Court for direction, they could resign. In the latter event, directors/charge holders could appoint new administrators. In all these scenarios the outcome is unlikely to be significantly different as the facts would remain the same & the result is likely to be the same ... the IP seeking legal clarification. The alternative is that the company is placed into liquidation which would have worse consequences as outlined in the report. AIUI the FCA has no remit when it comes to dealing with insolvency, that is the province of the Insolvency service & the courts. The regulator merely agrees the chosen IP is suitable to act in the regulatory environment but they cannot take a role in the process beyond that.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Nov 20, 2019 9:35:39 GMT
|
|
