|
|
Post by justice4investors on Apr 20, 2020 14:56:57 GMT
If you are a larger investor in Assetz Capital you may be aware that the current pooled payment system, unfairly discriminates against you. Capital and interest payments made to the access account, on loans that you are a participant, are currently being reinvested, without your express permission.
The pooled payment system presently allows withdrawals, irrespective of the timing of withdrawal requests or lenders exposure to the loans which the funds are generated from. The Directors of AC are aware of this, however they continue to unfairly allocate funds & refuse to engage with concerned lenders who have brought this to their attention.
It appears, the only way in which investors can immediately stop AC unfairly prejudicing against larger investors, is to seek an injunction to prevent any further withdrawals from AC, until an equitable process is put in place which takes account of the timing of withdrawal requests & lenders exposure to loans where funds are generated.
Such action may have a short term impact on inventors cash flow, however it will ensure that everybody receives returns pro-rata to their level of exposure, and critically every investor, large or small, will have access to redeemed capital at the earliest possible opportunity.
Having sought legal counsel, we believe that not only should such action prevent future discriminatory distributions; it could also result in the directors of Assetz Capital being personally liable for any disproportionate allocation of funds, already allocated.
For avoidance of doubt, our intention is solely to prevent further unfair distribution of funds, and investment of redeemed funds against the express wishes of individual investors.
We reiterate we did not want to resort to legal action & have attempted to engage with AC to prevent the need for such measures. We appreciate this may cause a degree of short term pain, however the long term gain should be that all investors will be given a fair distribution of funds, and will have access to redeemed capital at the earliest opportunity.
Long term, it may be questionable wether Assetz Capital is a place for larger investors to invest. It was one thing to discriminate against existing investors and afford new investors preferential interest rates, however, forcing investors to invest redeemed capital into loans that are an ever increasing credit risk, is reckless and may be illegal.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 20, 2020 15:19:04 GMT
This is the inevitable consequence of AC's discriminatory and probably illegal actions. I am glad to see that there are investors taking action to prevent this gross misappropriation of investors money.
Could you tell me who "we" are? Do you represent a group of large investors?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528 
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 20, 2020 15:46:42 GMT
This is the inevitable consequence of AC's discriminatory and probably illegal actions. I am glad to see that there are investors taking action to prevent this gross misappropriation of investors money. Could you tell me who "we" are? Do you represent a group of large investors? .. and approximately how much money these investors control? (7-figures? 8-figures? ...)
|
|
amwinv
Member of DD Central
Posts: 198
Likes: 282
|
Post by amwinv on Apr 20, 2020 15:52:33 GMT
Could you tell me who "we" are? Do you represent a group of large investors? Pretty sure we can all guess who the OP is. Wondered where he had been the last week. It's been suspiciously quiet on the board. Also OP you'll be "pleased" to know that some have claimed on other threads that it's not a pool anymore. It's a queue now, and withdrawals are being processed by date of joining said queue. So... You won already? Maybe stop trying to bankrupt a clearly struggling platform with massive legal fees in the middle of an unprecidented global pandemic and potentially upcoming massive economic depression? All you're going to do is lose ALL of your money invested in the platform, and all of ours too.
|
|
|
|
Post by kazamx on Apr 20, 2020 16:01:32 GMT
Hi JasonNewman,
I thought you had moved onto other things. Glad to see you have been keeping yourself busy.
Out of interest, could you let us know how many investors you are representing?
How much money these investors are owed?
How much money each investor is being asked to hand over to fund the case?
Specifically what clauses in the T&C are you disputing?
Didn't this thread need a poll? I thought you were all about the polls
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 20, 2020 16:04:33 GMT
This thread is about to turn into a war zone.
Maybe Mods can see who shares IP's of the accounts to confirm this isn't Jason again, making more threads. It reads like a Jason thread unfontunely
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Apr 20, 2020 16:09:23 GMT
Is there a definition of what constitutes a large investor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 20, 2020 16:11:15 GMT
Is there a definition of what constitutes a large investor? We don't know seen wildly random numbers thrown around from 23k to 85k, but we imagine the more angry you are the more likely you are a large investor. 
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 20, 2020 16:15:37 GMT
Could you tell me who "we" are? Do you represent a group of large investors? Pretty sure we can all guess who the OP is. Wondered where he had been the last week. It's been suspiciously quiet on the board. Also OP you'll be "pleased" to know that some have claimed on other threads that it's not a pool anymore. It's a queue now, and withdrawals are being processed by date of joining said queue. So... You won already? Maybe stop trying to bankrupt a clearly struggling platform with massive legal fees in the middle of an unprecidented global pandemic and potentially upcoming massive economic depression? All you're going to do is lose ALL of your money invested in the platform, and all of ours too. What on earth are you talking about? Its still a pool, there is no change to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on Apr 20, 2020 16:19:29 GMT
Also OP you'll be "pleased" to know that some have claimed on other threads that it's not a pool anymore. It's a queue now, and withdrawals are being processed by date of joining said queue.
I think these were people who had asked for a withdrawal on the day AC changed the rules into a pooled situation , AC had reverted back only to these people - I might be wrong -if it is a queued position I would like to know where I am
Im not happy with the way AC have handled this. If you are going to pool the money surely we should be getting equal %.. But that might be too complicated to work out
FYI I'm waiting for 10K in the QAA and over 50K in the 30AA maybe im not a large investor though ??
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 20, 2020 16:23:26 GMT
Also OP you'll be "pleased" to know that some have claimed on other threads that it's not a pool anymore. It's a queue now, and withdrawals are being processed by date of joining said queue.
I think these were people who had asked for a withdrawal on the day AC changed the rules into a pooled situation , AC had reverted back only to these people - I might be wrong -if it is a queued position I would like to know where I am Im not happy with the way AC have handled this. If you are going to pool the money surely we should be getting equal %.. But that might be too complicated to work out FYI I'm waiting for 10K in the QAA and over 50K in the 30AA maybe im not a large investor though ?? Take a look at the thread "access account withdrawal date tracker". At the moment your £10k will take about a year and a half to get out. Your £50k will take about 7 and a half years.
|
|
|
|
Post by henders on Apr 20, 2020 16:33:08 GMT
It is still a pool with e everyone getting the same amount.
AC did honour lenders who requested Withdrawal just before "not normal market conditions" as they were initially actioned by AC and then rolled back into accounts.
I think AC realised that they cannot "give" you your money and then "take it back" arbitrarily.
I think we have seen some unprofessional and knee jerk decision making here and AC need to take cognisance of both their contracts, regulations and above all tbe law.
I'm glad to be mostly ( not completely) out.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 20, 2020 16:48:47 GMT
If you are a larger investor in Assetz Capital you may be aware that the current pooled payment system, unfairly discriminates against you. Capital and interest payments made to the access account, on loans that you are a participant, are currently being reinvested, without your express permission. The pooled payment system presently allows withdrawals, irrespective of the timing of withdrawal requests or lenders exposure to the loans which the funds are generated from. The Directors of AC are aware of this, however they continue to unfairly allocate funds & refuse to engage with concerned lenders who have brought this to their attention. It appears, the only way in which investors can immediately stop AC unfairly prejudicing against larger investors, is to seek an injunction to prevent any further withdrawals from AC, until an equitable process is put in place which takes account of the timing of withdrawal requests & lenders exposure to loans where funds are generated. Such action may have a short term impact on inventors cash flow, however it will ensure that everybody receives returns pro-rata to their level of exposure, and critically every investor, large or small, will have access to redeemed capital at the earliest possible opportunity. Having sought legal counsel, we believe that not only should such action prevent future discriminatory distributions; it could also result in the directors of Assetz Capital being personally liable for any disproportionate allocation of funds, already allocated. For avoidance of doubt, our intention is solely to prevent further unfair distribution of funds, and investment of redeemed funds against the express wishes of individual investors. We reiterate we did not want to resort to legal action & have attempted to engage with AC to prevent the need for such measures. We appreciate this may cause a degree of short term pain, however the long term gain should be that all investors will be given a fair distribution of funds, and will have access to redeemed capital at the earliest opportunity. Long term, it may be questionable wether Assetz Capital is a place for larger investors to invest. It was one thing to discriminate against existing investors and afford new investors preferential interest rates, however, forcing investors to invest redeemed capital into loans that are an ever increasing credit risk, is reckless and may be illegal. Based on who's definition of unfair?
I thought the system we all signed up to was first in the queue is first to be paid (which AC have said they will revert to once conditions allow). I am not happy with the AC changes, but it appears that you are not pressing to have the original system reinstated, but instead have a pooled system with pro-rata payments. This would be grossly unfair to investors in the QAA and to the advantage of big investors in the 30 / 90 day accounts.
As a side issue, any success you achieve in having the rules altered is likely to be a pyrrhic victory, given the tiny drible of repayments being returned to investors.
|
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 838
Likes: 638
|
Post by jcb208 on Apr 20, 2020 16:55:58 GMT
Repayments from access accounts seem to have come to a crawl after the initial £400 or so,now its a few pound a day at best
|
|
rogedavi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 129
|
Post by rogedavi on Apr 20, 2020 17:58:06 GMT
I have no issue with the queue turning into a pool.
But I do have an issue with flat pay outs rather pro-rata payouts. The reason being is larger investors will be left with an increasingly toxic pool of loans which treats them unfairly verses other smaller investors who will be made whole over time by the good part of the loan book.
Essentially AC is robbing Peter to Paul.
|
|
