Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598 
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 20, 2020 11:50:46 GMT
The law of the UK is governed by both justice and equity. Not quite.
In Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc the Court ruled that: The principle of freedom of contract, which is still fundamental to our commercial law, requires the court to respect and give effect to the parties’ agreement
The courts are very reluctant to interfere with contractual provisions ie "The contract is King" so as to provide certainty between parties. No one would enter a contract if it could easily be changed at the whim of the court.
I'm sure Assetz hope we stop complaining. The first 25 cases referred to the FOS are free - thereafter it's £550 a pop.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 20, 2020 11:57:27 GMT
Discriminating against larger investors may well be illegal. Choosing to invest redeemed capital in ever more risky loans against investors wishes, is verging on immoral, and demonstrates how the directors are doing what’s best for AC not it’s investors. Unfortunately AC have committed to drawdowns on current loans and I guess if they do not loan this money there can be legal action, from another thread 71 million (will be more if capital repayments since the lockdown are included) have been made in future commitments on the caveat that this is a figure taken from the data but cannot/has not be properly verified (probably a long task). Therefore AC have promised money that they do not have and have to rely on new investors, funding from other sources or investors keeping some of the interest and capital repayments in the platform.
As there is very little chance of much in the way of new investors or other sources of funding the only way AC can fund this is by locking up lenders capital repayments.
The question is can AC legally take lenders repayments to place in loans extensions especially as these loans are now higher risk than the original assessment. As this is advertised and sold as P2P this implies the lender owns the loans therefore owns the interest and capital repayments, I would guess that the capital repayments are the property of the lender so could well be illegal. It looks like AC actions of promising money they do not have left them open to legal action and or investigation from the FCA whatever they do.
AC can say they can change the T&Cs to allow this to happen however I believe T&Cs make up a contractual agreement between the lenders and the platform. I am not sure of the legality that one party can have an enforceable clause that states they can change the T&Cs without the other parties permission. When RS changed the T&Cs it gave its lenders the right to withdraw all of their funds from the platform and by not using this option the lenders accepted the new T&Cs.
We can now see the model AC created only works in the good times and cannot bear too much stress and has not had any or very little stress testing.
"AC have promised money that they do not have and have to rely on new investors, funding from other sources or investors keeping some of the interest and capital repayments in the platform" Sounding more and more like a ponzi scheme. They are running out of cash on 2 fronts: 1. The imposition of lender fees on locked in investors accounts indicates that they are running out of money to keep the business itself afloat. 2. The fact they are now relying on repayments of existing loans (very doubtful in the current environment) to fund future loan commitments puts that future funding in doubt What happens if they renege on future loan funding commitments? Do they just have to fold overnight? We, as lenders, have been told many times "the cheques in the post, honest" by unscrupulous borrowers - can AC use the same type of excuse on this occasion to buy them time? Of course it doesn't really matter if the tidal wave of future commitments swamps the repaying loans.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 20, 2020 12:02:27 GMT
The law of the UK is governed by both justice and equity. Not quite.
In Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc the Court ruled that: The principle of freedom of contract, which is still fundamental to our commercial law, requires the court to respect and give effect to the parties’ agreement
The courts are very reluctant to interfere with contractual provisions ie "The contract is King" so as to provide certainty between parties. No one would enter a contract if it could easily be changed at the whim of the court.
I'm sure Assetz hope we stop complaining. The first 25 cases referred to the FOS are free - thereafter it's £550 a pop.
I believe but am happy to be corrected that we each own a contract with each borrower including any future committed borrowing. There will be cases in law on both sides but in my opinion only it would have been immoral for large lenders to walk away from those contracts because they acted quickest. I never referred to legal complaints in law only to the few that took over every thread to repeat the same complaint which is fruitless.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 20, 2020 12:07:31 GMT
Not quite.
In Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc the Court ruled that: The principle of freedom of contract, which is still fundamental to our commercial law, requires the court to respect and give effect to the parties’ agreement
The courts are very reluctant to interfere with contractual provisions ie "The contract is King" so as to provide certainty between parties. No one would enter a contract if it could easily be changed at the whim of the court.
I'm sure Assetz hope we stop complaining. The first 25 cases referred to the FOS are free - thereafter it's £550 a pop.
I believe but am happy to be corrected that we each own a contract with each borrower including any future committed borrowing. There will be cases in law on both sides but in my opinion only it would have been immoral for large lenders to walk away from those contracts because they acted quickest. I never referred to legal complaints in law only to the few that took over every thread to repeat the same complaint which is fruitless. Larger lenders can only act quicker as you say if they were willing to forsake a premium interest rate in return for quicker access to their funds. It is blatantly unfair if larger investors can not withdraw funds pro rata to their investment
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 20, 2020 12:09:15 GMT
Not quite.
In Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc the Court ruled that: The principle of freedom of contract, which is still fundamental to our commercial law, requires the court to respect and give effect to the parties’ agreement
The courts are very reluctant to interfere with contractual provisions ie "The contract is King" so as to provide certainty between parties. No one would enter a contract if it could easily be changed at the whim of the court.
I'm sure Assetz hope we stop complaining. The first 25 cases referred to the FOS are free - thereafter it's £550 a pop.
I believe but am happy to be corrected that we each own a contract with each borrower including any future committed borrowing. There will be cases in law on both sides but in my opinion only it would have been immoral for large lenders to walk away from those contracts because they acted quickest. I never referred to legal complaints in law only to the few that took over every thread to repeat the same complaint which is fruitless.
We each 'own' a contract eh? The contracts wouldn't be 'waked away' from they would be reassigned to another party. May I suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no commitment for any lender to provide further funds in the same way there is no obligation for Assetz to advance further funds.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 20, 2020 12:11:32 GMT
They've done everything pretty much right, except for treating different sets of investors unfairly. I still cant understand what the rationale for that decision could possibly be - its unfair and most probably illegal. Discriminating against larger investors may well be illegal. Choosing to invest redeemed capital in ever more risky loans against investors wishes, is verging on immoral, and demonstrates how the directors are doing what’s best for AC not it’s investors. They clearly don't care. They are acting in their own best interests and are stringing this out for as long as possible by locking investors in and imposing additional fees on them just so they can keep the business afloat. If they thought the business had a long term future they would not have made decisions like this.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 20, 2020 12:29:03 GMT
Discriminating against larger investors may well be illegal. Choosing to invest redeemed capital in ever more risky loans against investors wishes, is verging on immoral, and demonstrates how the directors are doing what’s best for AC not it’s investors. They clearly don't care. They are acting in their own best interests and are stringing this out for as long as possible by locking investors in and imposing additional fees on them just so they can keep the business afloat. If they thought the business had a long term future they would not have made decisions like this. They don’t there was due to be in excess of £50m to be redeemed in the next 3 months. This should be returned to investors - if they wish to reinvest fine but they should have the choice. It’s now a case of Stuart law and his team ensuring they drag the situation out and they keep earning.
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 772
|
Post by m2btj on Apr 20, 2020 12:53:37 GMT
The title of this thread has elicited yet even more complaints! Maybe it should have solicited a YES or NO answer.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 20, 2020 13:27:16 GMT
The title of this thread has elicited yet even more complaints! Maybe it should have solicited a YES or NO answer. Not more complaints. Same ones repeated. Your comment has prompted me to ask a question that only needs a simple answer. There are 3 alternatives 1 An ordered run down, platform failure or AC continuing operate the platform. Will we get more money returned from our borrowers with AC running the platform? My answer is YES
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 20, 2020 13:31:12 GMT
The title of this thread has elicited yet even more complaints! Maybe it should have solicited a YES or NO answer. Not more complaints. Same ones repeated. Your comment has prompted me to ask a question that only needs a simple answer. There are 3 alternatives 1 An ordered run down, platform failure or AC continuing operate the platform. Will we get more money returned from our borrowers with AC running the platform? My answer is YES AC can continue to run the platform whilst respecting the existing terms and conditions can't they?
Reckless abandonment of those terms destroys investor confidence which will prevent Assetz from continuing as a going concern - surely this isn't too difficult a concept to understand is it?
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 20, 2020 13:32:36 GMT
Not more complaints. Same ones repeated. Your comment has prompted me to ask a question that only needs a simple answer. There are 3 alternatives 1 An ordered run down, platform failure or AC continuing operate the platform. Will we get more money returned from our borrowers with AC running the platform? My answer is YES AC can continue to run the platform whilst respecting the existing terms and conditions can't they?
Reckless abandonment of those terms destroys investor confidence which will prevent Assetz from continuing as a going concern - surely this isn't too difficult a concept to understand is it?
Yes or No?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 20, 2020 13:36:10 GMT
The title of this thread has elicited yet even more complaints! Maybe it should have solicited a YES or NO answer. Not more complaints. Same ones repeated. Your comment has prompted me to ask a question that only needs a simple answer. There are 3 alternatives 1 An ordered run down, platform failure or AC continuing operate the platform. Will we get more money returned from our borrowers with AC running the platform? My answer is YES The discussion won't stop until they have exited the platform. Continuing the operation of the platform is the best option. However I dont' think anybody is disputing that, I too am concerned about how "legal" it is to force capital reinvesments. I don't think it get anywhere complaining to the OB but I actually do for once, agree with the other posters who have serious issues with that. On the other hand, the following has to be considered: Not being able to sell out is one thing, but investors money being recycled rather than returned is another (against their wishes). I will just ask this, how will AC drawdown on-going projects in the future if its all paid back to investors? As in, even if we were awarded say £10,000,000 in queued paid funds (my guess is the queue is longer than this possibly), then what about your money thats still in the platform? In the current pro-rate system most investors won't get all their funds returned. You will be holding project developments which have now ceased to exist as legal obligation. If AC failed to fund a drawdown on time or at all it is likely the court would not even honour our first charge security as we failed the contract. (I'm no expert, but I've seen this repeated by a few posters too) It would be hugely unfair on the borrower. The whole process could be dragged on for years, as some defaults already are on AC and 100's of other loans across the P2P universe. I think the best AC are coming up with is splitting up the cash that is freed up, some for drawdowns, some for investors in the queue, some for fees & some for monthly interest. The trust in the platform has been hammered.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 20, 2020 13:36:41 GMT
I believe but am happy to be corrected that we each own a contract with each borrower including any future committed borrowing. There will be cases in law on both sides but in my opinion only it would have been immoral for large lenders to walk away from those contracts because they acted quickest. I never referred to legal complaints in law only to the few that took over every thread to repeat the same complaint which is fruitless. I wish everyone one of you safety at this time Form memory there was a post on this forum about a platform that collapsed which has contracts with borrowers being promised future tranches of funds, when they did not arrive obviously because the platform collapsed some borrowers tried to force the lenders to honer these future trances, this was thrown out of court.
Would be interesting to know if platform collapses if the directors would have some liability to either the borrowers and/or the lenders due to to promising money they do not have and using the capital repayments from lenders have asked to be withdrawn to cover the shortfall.
I can only assume that the directors have very little or no money in the AAs as I have asked a number of times for them to disclose position in these accounts, a bit like directors buying shares in the business they run, it gives shareholders some confidence that the directors believe in the company. At present all we know it is in the directors best interest to string this out as long as possible in order to keep taking those nice salaries partly paid by increase fees.
I too would also like to wish everyone one of you safety at this time.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 20, 2020 13:38:53 GMT
AC can continue to run the platform whilst respecting the existing terms and conditions can't they?
Reckless abandonment of those terms destroys investor confidence which will prevent Assetz from continuing as a going concern - surely this isn't too difficult a concept to understand is it?
Yes or No? You're missing the point. The answer is obviously yes as alluded to in my response that you quoted.
The two choices aren't: - A) put the platform into administration - B) Continue running the platform but move the goalposts with changes to pools and queues
The destruction in trust that these sort of changes make prevents any sensible investor from investing in the future. That's the danger to the platform.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 20, 2020 13:43:21 GMT
The title of this thread has elicited yet even more complaints! Maybe it should have solicited a YES or NO answer. Not more complaints. Same ones repeated. Your comment has prompted me to ask a question that only needs a simple answer. There are 3 alternatives 1 An ordered run down, platform failure or AC continuing operate the platform. Will we get more money returned from our borrowers with AC running the platform? My answer is YES If you are a small investor the answer is YES If you are a large investor the answer is NO. The current cash distribution system used by AC is hugely detrimental to any large investor. Large investors would be better off with an administrator running the platform down - that is the only way that large investors are ever likely to get any decent proportion of their investment back.
|
|
