mrsb
Posts: 196
Likes: 102
|
Post by mrsb on Apr 22, 2020 6:53:16 GMT
This is what real world problems look like in a global emergency; not whether you can get your quarter or half a million out ahead ahead of NHS staff too exhausted taking care of us to micro monitor the cash buffers of oblique black box investments now running significantly below their minimum operating levels because of the panicking rich. WAKE UP.We've got a lot in QAA and work in NHS ... where does that put us on your judgmental scale? I doubt very much that urgency among the rich is running at a different level than everyone [edit - anyone] else who fears their money is at risk. Rich is a relative term; as we all know - in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477 
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Apr 22, 2020 8:43:46 GMT
I don't believe any of us has invested more than £150,000.00 in AC at any given point in time ... I've had more than £200k in at one point I know of two accounts that have more than £150k in them...
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Apr 22, 2020 8:53:27 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 That's what I thought as well, so I looked up www.assetzcapital.co.uk/blog/access-accounts-update which claims it was last updated on 17th April. It is very clear, it says "The queue now operates using the same distribution method as the Manual Lending Account aftermarket.". I did think that I found reference to FIFO running again, but I can't find it now, it must have been a dream.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Apr 22, 2020 12:11:41 GMT
I've had more than £200k in at one point I know of two accounts that have more than £150k in them... Common guys, don't be too particular, you know what I meant. You might think with £150k you are a big investor but in AC eyes, you are not. I still want to know, are the institutional investors treated the same way as us or we, the retail investors are bailing them out?
|
|
|
|
Post by ian999 on Apr 22, 2020 13:51:58 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on how those who wish to, could club together to pay to obtain a legal opinion on whether AC has acted legally?
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 22, 2020 14:18:08 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on how those who wish to, could club together to pay to obtain a legal opinion on whether AC has acted legally? Presumably justice4investors has already initiated that process, so it's now just a question of watching the Courts listing for a prohibitive injunction hearing involving Assetz?  The pity would be if the hearing is listed as "Justice4Investors v BigWigQC and anr" - but truthfully I doubt this is anything more than hot air....
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 22, 2020 14:52:00 GMT
I know of two accounts that have more than £150k in them... Common guys, don't be too particular, you know what I meant. You might think with £150k you are a big investor but in AC eyes, you are not. I still want to know, are the institutional investors treated the same way as us or we, the retail investors are bailing them out? AFAIK tutes fund parts and whole loans in the marketplace (i.e. MLA). The access accounts are for retail investors only. As you know, MLAs are functioning as normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Apr 22, 2020 19:41:52 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on how those who wish to, could club together to pay to obtain a legal opinion on whether AC has acted legally? Oh yes, you have come to the right website for this information!! You should go straight to the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/16586/lendy-action-group-fund-raise for a fund raise of £75,455 from 1529 pledges on the CrowdJustice site. The purpose is to contest the administration of the failed P2P platform Lendy, and the investors involved in the action believe £30M are at stake. Also you should factor in the possibility that you may have the P2P platform's legal costs awarded against you, and I can give two examples of the sums involved. On the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13512/london-loan a borrower sought to sue Lendy (they tend to get sued by both lenders and borrowers), but her High Court application was refused and she had to pay costs of £25K. My own expertise in these matters derives from the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/14543/cashing-out-court-case in which I, and 611 other investors on the platform Unbolted, face a nutcase borrower with the ambition to sue us. So far he has cost himself £42.5K of the P2P platform's legal costs, in a failed High Court application that was preliminary to the main case. So in summary, you should set up a fundraiser on CrowdJustice with the target, I suggest, of £125,000 and see how much you get. But also bear in mind that history shows pandemics, financial crises, and recessions all eventually run their course. So by exercising patience you might get your money from AC without all the above expense. I hope this helps ian999
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 22, 2020 20:06:39 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on how those who wish to, could club together to pay to obtain a legal opinion on whether AC has acted legally? Oh yes, you have come to the right website for this information!! You should go straight to the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/16586/lendy-action-group-fund-raise for a fund raise of £75,455 from 1529 pledges on the CrowdJustice site. The purpose is to contest the administration of the failed P2P platform Lendy, and the investors involved in the action believe £30M are at stake. Also you should factor in the possibility that you may have the P2P platform's legal costs awarded against you, and I can give two examples of the sums involved. On the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13512/london-loan a borrower sought to sue Lendy (they tend to get sued by both lenders and borrowers), but her High Court application was refused and she had to pay costs of £25K. My own expertise in these matters derives from the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/14543/cashing-out-court-case in which I, and 611 other investors on the platform Unbolted, face a nutcase borrower with the ambition to sue us. So far he has cost himself £42.5K of the P2P platform's legal costs, in a failed High Court application that was preliminary to the main case. So in summary, you should set up a fundraiser on CrowdJustice with the target, I suggest, of £125,000 and see how much you get. But also bear in mind that history shows pandemics, financial crises, and recessions all eventually run their course. So by exercising patience you might get your money from AC without all the above expense. I hope this helps ian999 You appear to have misunderstood what was being asked.
The issue was obtaining legal opinion, not going to court
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 22, 2020 20:13:56 GMT
Oh yes, you have come to the right website for this information!! You should go straight to the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/16586/lendy-action-group-fund-raise for a fund raise of £75,455 from 1529 pledges on the CrowdJustice site. The purpose is to contest the administration of the failed P2P platform Lendy, and the investors involved in the action believe £30M are at stake. Also you should factor in the possibility that you may have the P2P platform's legal costs awarded against you, and I can give two examples of the sums involved. On the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/13512/london-loan a borrower sought to sue Lendy (they tend to get sued by both lenders and borrowers), but her High Court application was refused and she had to pay costs of £25K. My own expertise in these matters derives from the thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/14543/cashing-out-court-case in which I, and 611 other investors on the platform Unbolted, face a nutcase borrower with the ambition to sue us. So far he has cost himself £42.5K of the P2P platform's legal costs, in a failed High Court application that was preliminary to the main case. So in summary, you should set up a fundraiser on CrowdJustice with the target, I suggest, of £125,000 and see how much you get. But also bear in mind that history shows pandemics, financial crises, and recessions all eventually run their course. So by exercising patience you might get your money from AC without all the above expense. I hope this helps ian999 You appear to have misunderstood what was being asked.
The issue was obtaining legal opinion, not going to court
The first example still holds true. The aim was to raise funds to explore the legal position, that may subsequently lead to securing representation and court, but not if the legal advice was negative. Going to court is a fair way down the line in the process, in the case of the other examples 1 year to 18 months. The point about possibly getting legal fees recovered should also caveated that getting awarded fees is somewhat different from actually receiving them eg the second example those fees have not AIUI been paid (also they are considerably more than £25k)
|
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Apr 22, 2020 20:20:04 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. A reminder to all as to what this thread is about.
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Apr 23, 2020 8:10:24 GMT
I know of two accounts that have more than £150k in them... Common guys, don't be too particular, you know what I meant. You might think with £150k you are a big investor but in AC eyes, you are not. I still want to know, are the institutional investors treated the same way as us or we, the retail investors are bailing them out? Oh, I agree. At an order of magnitude greater investment you are sitll not a big investor in AC eyes, even if you also have a significant (out of Seedrs range) investment and know quite a lot about the very strange internal dealings between all of the related companies. Most companies I know do a better job of managing big customers and shareholders. I believe that there is clear segragation between loans allocated to institutional investors and retail investors. That said, there is also segragation of us small fry into manual and access accounts - it's clear that AC didn't want the overhead of manual investors and were pushing everyone to access accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by martinde21 on Apr 23, 2020 9:49:38 GMT
Folks
Discussing legal action and the alleged case in a public forum which anyone with Internet access can read is always a gift to the defence counsel. You are also open to counter action. Just sayin
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 23, 2020 10:17:45 GMT
Looking at the repayments on my accounts I would hazard a guess AC have stopped redeeming any capital repayments (if there are any). I can only assume they have come to their senses and realised the pool system was discriminating against the majority of their retail investors by value, is not the way to go!
What we as investors need assurance is that capital repayments & interest received, will either be made on the established FIFO basis or will be apportioned pro - Rata or in line with investors exposure to individual loans.
Critically - We need transparency of payments to institutional investors to assure us we are treated fairly, at lease pro rata.
Under the Pool system those with investments of less than Circa £2000 probably benefited, the institutional investors, investing £10’s of millions potentially benefitted & everyone else was probably screwed !
I starting to think collective action a la the Lendy action group may be the way to go.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 23, 2020 10:21:41 GMT
Looking at the repayments on my accounts I would hazard a guess AC have stopped redeeming any capital repayments (if there are any). I can only assume they have come to their senses and realised the pool system was discriminating against the majority of their retail investors by value, is not the way to go!What we as investors need assurance is that capital repayments & interest received, will either be made on the established FIFO basis or will be apportioned pro - Rata or in line with investors exposure to individual loans. Critically - We need transparency of payments to institutional investors to assure us we are treated fairly, at lease pro rata. Under the Pool system those with investments of less than Circa £2000 probably benefited, the institutional investors, investing £10’s of millions potentially benefitted & everyone else was probably screwed ! I starting to think collective action a la the Lendy action group may be the way to go. I have not seen any loans being redeemed for a while (quick search found loan #406 repaid £288K on 14 April as a possible last redemption). If that's the case, AC have no ability to pay out on the pool system and hence would not be due to a change of policy.
|
|
