quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295 
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Feb 5, 2020 17:11:40 GMT
To be honest all you need to know is not behind the pay wall "Administrators from RSM Restructuring concede that their approach appears to conflict with what Lendy told investors when it took their money"
RSM are going to be sued for serious amounts if they carry on trying to sustain the theft initiated by Lendy.
Which is exactly the reason they are following procedure & going to the courts for a definitive view. If the courts say their interpretation is correct then they are in the clear. Our job is to demonstrate that it isn't. They’ve conceded the investments were mis-sold. RSM need to return investor money are face losing their licence to operate.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul123 on Feb 5, 2020 17:55:12 GMT
updates from Lisa from fb: Lendy could be taking £30,000,000 or more of your money! Our most recent estimates project the waterfall will strip away more than 1/2 of all M2 investor money if allowed to remain as is. L*** could even come out of the administration with a huge pot of our money to take home! No, I'm not kidding and yes, it's that serious. Please contribute your fair share to help LAG stop this from happening. ---- Just a quick update. LAG's solicitors are now in contact with RSM and GT. Whilst we cannot share details, please know we are working diligently and are highly motivated! www.crowdjustice.com/case/lendy-action-group-legal-fund(GT - Grant Thornton is the conflict administrator appointed by RSM for SSSH) |
|
|
|
Post by default on Feb 5, 2020 18:04:05 GMT
RSM are just the insolvency practitioner. As such, they follow the rules of their profession. The reason this is going to court is that RSM recognise a conflict between the interests of creditors and investors which they have no authority to resolve. They cannot form a judgement about whether investors were mis-sold. That isn't in their remit. Whilst I am not happy about the way this administration is being handled, particularly in relation to the escalating costs, the truth is that these are not directly the fault of RMS. The whole Lendy debacle has been one of incompetence and indifference, from a regulatory perspective. Ultimately, it is government that allowed this all to happen.
Edit: It should be noted that RSM cannot put the case for investors to the court, as their responsibility is to represent creditors, and that is where LAG come into this. The legal representation that LAG have obtained will put the case for investors to the court, and hopefully the court will then make a balanced decision between these two conflicting positions. And, yes, I think we were mis-sold, however, if the FCA admit that then the way will be open for claims against the FSCS.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Feb 5, 2020 18:56:10 GMT
if the FCA and FOS followed the rules of their profession we would not be in all this mess. i thought they had powers to null and void unfair T@Cs and lots more besides. it seems they are just puppets for these platforms.p2p encouraged by the government yea sounds about right with no comeback on directors/platforms/fca/fos/administrators etc etc.only the massively understated risks of the incompetance and in some cases blatent fraud that we wre encouraged to invest into.
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Feb 5, 2020 19:14:56 GMT
There needs to be a public inquiry to really get to the bottom of all of this. Possibly, just possibly, this could be the spark that sets that fire. There have been too many people who have had their lives destroyed by Lendy. I looked on with utter horror as ZanMan posted about his eviction on the LAG forum. As a supposedly decent society, we simply cannot tolerate these kind of injustices.
|
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on Feb 5, 2020 20:08:20 GMT
Just after 8pm on Wednesday.
23 days to go, £42,902 pledged of £75,000 stretch target from 858 pledges.
Now at 57.20% of the way, to the TARGET.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 5, 2020 20:13:07 GMT
Edit: It should be noted that RSM cannot put the case for investors to the court, as their responsibility is to represent creditors, and that is where LAG come into this. The legal representation that LAG have obtained will put the case for investors to the court, and hopefully the court will then make a balanced decision between these two conflicting positions. And, yes, I think we were mis-sold, however, if the FCA admit that then the way will be open for claims against the FSCS. Only in a very specific set of circumstances. Misselling is not the same as misadvising and that seems to be the key element for FSCS involvement. See LCF case.
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Feb 5, 2020 20:23:34 GMT
Edit: It should be noted that RSM cannot put the case for investors to the court, as their responsibility is to represent creditors, and that is where LAG come into this. The legal representation that LAG have obtained will put the case for investors to the court, and hopefully the court will then make a balanced decision between these two conflicting positions. And, yes, I think we were mis-sold, however, if the FCA admit that then the way will be open for claims against the FSCS. Only in a very specific set of circumstances. Misselling is not the same as misadvising and that seems to be the key element for FSCS involvement. See LCF case. Oh, I know about LC&F alright. Where there is any scope for interpretation, be sure the FCA will wash their hands of it. But I genuinely think this all goes beyond interpretation. We were deceived. That is obvious now. Information was withheld from us that clearly contradicted what we were told. That in not mis-advising. That is mis-selling. The subtle difference between these is the first is not necessarily false but leads to a false impression, whereas the second is false in itself.
Edit: And let us remember that the FCA authorised Lendy before Lendy had fully compensated lenders for the mis-selling that the FCA had identified as part of the authorisation process. Put bluntly, I do not trust the FCA. They are much too compromised. That is why there really needs to be a public inquiry for justice to be truly seen to be done.
|
|
gc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152
Likes: 141
|
Post by gc on Feb 5, 2020 21:56:55 GMT
Only in a very specific set of circumstances. Misselling is not the same as misadvising and that seems to be the key element for FSCS involvement. See LCF case. Oh, I know about LC&F alright. Where there is any scope for interpretation, be sure the FCA will wash their hands of it. But I genuinely think this all goes beyond interpretation. We were deceived. That is obvious now. Information was withheld from us that clearly contradicted what we were told. That in not mis-advising. That is mis-selling. The subtle difference between these is the first is not necessarily false but leads to a false impression, whereas the second is false in itself.
Edit: And let us remember that the FCA authorised Lendy before Lendy had fully compensated lenders for the mis-selling that the FCA had identified as part of the authorisation process. Put bluntly, I do not trust the FCA. They are much too compromised. That is why there really needs to be a public inquiry for justice to be truly seen to be done.
It would be interesting to see their answer to this. They are accountable to Parliament and the Treasury, though the chances of them being called up to defend this, one can only hope.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Feb 5, 2020 23:23:08 GMT
Oh, I know about LC&F alright. Where there is any scope for interpretation, be sure the FCA will wash their hands of it. But I genuinely think this all goes beyond interpretation. We were deceived. That is obvious now. Information was withheld from us that clearly contradicted what we were told. That in not mis-advising. That is mis-selling. The subtle difference between these is the first is not necessarily false but leads to a false impression, whereas the second is false in itself.
Edit: And let us remember that the FCA authorised Lendy before Lendy had fully compensated lenders for the mis-selling that the FCA had identified as part of the authorisation process. Put bluntly, I do not trust the FCA. They are much too compromised. That is why there really needs to be a public inquiry for justice to be truly seen to be done.
It would be interesting to see their answer to this. They are accountable to Parliament and the Treasury, though the chances of them being called up to defend this, one can only hope. Yes, but "accountable" insofar as the FCA only have to offer explanations, which, if the explanations aren't good enough, Parliament and/or the Treasury can actually DO Football Association about it. Even if the FCA is directed to pay out Compensation/Other they can refuse to do so, such is the Nuclear Teflon & Invincible way they have been set up. Which, of course, explains the FCA's attitude and accompanying "work ethic" in a nutshell. .
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Feb 5, 2020 23:28:41 GMT
Oh, I know about LC&F alright. Where there is any scope for interpretation, be sure the FCA will wash their hands of it. But I genuinely think this all goes beyond interpretation. We were deceived. That is obvious now. Information was withheld from us that clearly contradicted what we were told. That in not mis-advising. That is mis-selling. The subtle difference between these is the first is not necessarily false but leads to a false impression, whereas the second is false in itself.
Edit: And let us remember that the FCA authorised Lendy before Lendy had fully compensated lenders for the mis-selling that the FCA had identified as part of the authorisation process. Put bluntly, I do not trust the FCA. They are much too compromised. That is why there really needs to be a public inquiry for justice to be truly seen to be done.
It would be interesting to see their answer to this. They are accountable to Parliament and the Treasury, though the chances of them being called up to defend this, one can only hope. My understanding is that the FCA tried to turn Lendy around. Part of that was to give Lendy authorisation, despite existing shortcomings. As we all know, this failed 10 months later. And in so doing the FCA exposed lenders to additional unacceptable risk.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Feb 6, 2020 21:19:56 GMT
The CC have been bluntly told that they cannot opine about the waterfall as that is acting contrary to the interests of Lendy creditors, if we do we'll get kicked off the CC. It strikes me that the best interests of the creditors would be served by minimising the amount "lost" to legal costs and to RSM's own costs in order to stand any chance of having anything left at all to distribute to creditors.
i.e. agree to what a court would eventually be anticipated to rule as a fair settlement with investors without involving expensive legal action.
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Feb 6, 2020 23:03:08 GMT
My understanding is that the FCA tried to turn Lendy around. Part of that was to give Lendy authorisation, despite existing shortcomings. Replace the word, 'despite' with, 'because of'. I still find it utterly incomprehensible:
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Feb 6, 2020 23:36:25 GMT
My understanding is that the FCA tried to turn Lendy around. Part of that was to give Lendy authorisation, despite existing shortcomings. Replace the word, 'despite' with, 'because of'. I still find it utterly incomprehensible:
I am not quite sure how you are thinking about this, given your proposed word substitution. Nevertheless, I will give you a more detailed explanation.
If the FCA had refused to give Lendy authorisation then Lendy would have had to cease trading. To avoid this outcome, the FCA put in place detailed plans to resolve the problems that they found, which went much deeper than just mis-selling. The FCA then gave Lendy authorisation on the basis that these plans would be followed. They were not. This led the FCA to placing restrictions on Lendy. And Lendy subsequently went into administration. The FCA believed Lendy could be saved and it was in the best interests of the financial services to do so in order to avoid yet another embarrassing high profile failure. The FCA would no doubt argue that this would have been better for investors too. The FCA probably also believe that the words "your capital is at risk" absolved them of any responsibility to investors. And I think that is where they are very much mistaken. The investors that saw the FCA authorisation and believed Lendy were FCA compliant were mis-led. Lendy were not. Indeed, Lendy failed to fully compensate those that the FCA had identified as being mis-sold before going into administration. And so it is that should there be a public inquiry then all of this will come out and the conflicted role of the FCA will be fully exposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Feb 7, 2020 8:36:42 GMT
So basically,,we all knew our capital was at risk ( but managed risk),,, while the FCA knew it was at critical risk !!
|
|
