|
Post by closetotheedge on Oct 13, 2020 14:54:48 GMT
Voted for myself and my two family members. Went for 'No' on the basis that if the administration is distanced from the existing management we might fair better. Probably just wishful thinking. Changed the inserted £1 claim value to the actual amount outstanding for what it is worth.
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Oct 13, 2020 19:07:02 GMT
I've also voted against the CVA.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo123 on Oct 13, 2020 20:59:29 GMT
I've also voted against the CVA.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo123 on Oct 13, 2020 21:12:23 GMT
I've also voted against the CVA. My wife and I have also voted against the proposed CVA - We would rather let the administrators have our money than that shower of W*****S
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 15, 2020 9:49:17 GMT
As Suspected and previously told be me - the Results are just out and Overwhelmingly in Favour of the CVA.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 15, 2020 9:58:36 GMT
As Suspected and previously told be me - the Results are just out and Overwhelmingly in Favour of the CVA.Maybe a rigged vote? Russians involved? Kiss our capital good-bye! Where the investments are in a bond, losses can be offset (indefinitely) against future capital gains tax (NOT advice in any manner whatsoever, please everyone take your own individual taxation advice).
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 15, 2020 9:59:42 GMT
Definitely rigged.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 15, 2020 10:36:31 GMT
It must have been designed in such a way as to Win - by giving a much higher return to those creditors whose Vote by Debt Value would be high. This is my largest P2P Loss.
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Oct 15, 2020 10:51:02 GMT
I don't doubt the CVA will pass but I feel better for voting no. Statement from Duff & Phelps "As Nominees of the Wellesley Finance Plc CVA and Convenor of the Creditors’ Decision Procedure, we confirm that 94.7% of creditors (by value) who participated in the Decision Procedure voted in favour of the Proposal. Accordingly, as the relevant requisite majorities were exceeded, we declare that the Proposal for the CVA was approved." From the Chairman's report: "5. A number of creditors proposed various modifications to the Proposal, all of which were brought to the attention of the directors of the Company. The directors did not agree to any of the modifications proposed by creditors and as a result were not included as a term of the CVA. As stated in paragraph 1.4 of the Proposal, a creditor that voted “for” the Proposal subject to a proposed modification was considered as having voted in favour of the Proposal irrespective of whether that modification is accepted and included as a term of the CVA."
|
|
|
Post by et on Oct 15, 2020 11:14:35 GMT
It must have been designed in such a way as to Win - by giving a much higher return to those creditors whose Vote by Debt Value would be high. This is my largest P2P Loss.
with nearly £18m (29%) banked in their favour before the voting started they always had a great starting point. I am a little shocked at how few people (regardless of value voted against).
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Oct 15, 2020 12:31:24 GMT
I have put the votes into a spreadsheet, some things that stand out: How few voters voted no, irrespective of their holdings. How many voters only got a £1 vote - 24% of the total number of voters. Me included I suspect. I don't really understand this, I had 'secured' loans not minibonds, is that why? The 2 really big holders - TBQ Ltd (18% of total) and GO (Ferry Road) Ltd (10% of total). Who are they and why were they holding so much? What decided them to vote yes? The 6 'Employee' holders. All had quite modest holdings (under £6K), all voted yes.
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Oct 15, 2020 12:39:59 GMT
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,249
Likes: 2,693
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 15, 2020 12:59:38 GMT
I have put the votes into a spreadsheet, some things that stand out: How few voters voted no, irrespective of their holdings. How many voters only got a £1 vote - 24% of the total number of voters. Me included I suspect. I don't really understand this, I had 'secured' loans not minibonds, is that why? The 2 really big holders - Trent Bridge Quays Ltd (18% of total) and Generator Optima (Ferry Road) Ltd (10% of total). Who are they and why were they holding so much? What decided them to vote yes? The 6 'Employee' holders. All had quite modest holdings (under £6K), all voted yes. The pitch was very persuasive to vote yes. The two big voters are I believe borrowers (therefore creditors) who will presumably be able to keep their funds and possibly get more (promised?) drawdowns for their projects now, if it went to Administration they might be in big trouble. Lenders are apparently not creditors so only get a nominal £1 vote. Surprise, employees did not invest much. Could be a good career choice to vote yes.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Oct 15, 2020 13:00:44 GMT
I have put the votes into a spreadsheet, some things that stand out: How few voters voted no, irrespective of their holdings. How many voters only got a £1 vote - 24% of the total number of voters. Me included I suspect. I don't really understand this, I had 'secured' loans not minibonds, is that why? The 2 really big holders - TBQ Ltd (18% of total) and GO (Ferry Road) Ltd (10% of total). Who are they and why were they holding so much? What decided them to vote yes? The 6 'Employee' holders. All had quite modest holdings (under £6K), all voted yes. the 2 companies have outstanding charges against them and they both happen to be persons entitled only our own W.S.T.L. I do not know company house details but I would imagine it is lenders own money that has been counted in this scheme.
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Oct 15, 2020 13:35:36 GMT
Thanks I did look up the 2 companies on companies house and have read the charges (e.g. TBQ LIMITED link to more info in DDC) So as I understand it the two companies who made up 30% of the 'yes' vote are actually property developers who are borrowers from Wellesley, not lenders to Wellesley. I wouldn't expect borrowers to be creditors of a company but because of the 2 charges (both set up in late 2017) it seems they have become creditors to the value of the money they borrowed. I find that extraordinary, is that normal?
|
|