Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,568
Likes: 6,542
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 1, 2022 11:33:39 GMT
There's been no indication of the size of the settlement and no indication of any admission of wrongdoing.
As this is a civil case it's likely a settlement could be seen as a win for investors. Legal costs and the delay of going to trial have now been avoided.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Nov 8, 2022 16:33:16 GMT
Private eye recently reported in their back pages on a similar Marshall Island property buying scam. I was wondering @mousy if you ever contacted PE with your exemplary research?
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Nov 8, 2022 18:30:12 GMT
Private eye recently reported in their back pages on a similar Marshall Island property buying scam. I was wondering @mousy if you ever contacted PE with your exemplary research? Helping above with the typo and link: Mousey
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,568
Likes: 6,542
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 8, 2022 19:57:59 GMT
Private eye recently reported in their back pages on a similar Marshall Island property buying scam. I was wondering @mousy if you ever contacted PE with your exemplary research? It's tricky to either confirm or deny but there has been chatter with various entities about various things
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
Member is Online
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 8, 2022 21:52:36 GMT
looks to me that such alleged white collar crime is not taken as seriously as it should be - IMHO if guilty these 2 should be behind bars
So what message does this send out - shaft borrowers etc with fake invoices etc and if you get legal action against you - agree to settle (save a % of the money gained?) avoid jail and start again!
To me I see no excuse as to why 2 "different" people had the same IP address!
Appalling!
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 14, 2022 22:31:58 GMT
Good to see a suggestion of what seems a good outcome, but is there any indication (or reasonable expectation!) of when any of these "misappropriated" funds, or indeed of the remainder of investors' funds that the adminstrators are currently holding ransom in the client account, might ever find their way back to their legitimate owners?
Last I heard there was a delaying tactic involving needing to agree the terms of how the administrators would take their pound of flesh, presumably to "punish" us for daring to expect the terms of the loan contract to be upheld, and I've not really followed any further machinations in the last few months, being busier with more productive activities... I suppose any form of compensation for the further losses caused as a direct result of the administrators' unilateral decision to freeze all our assets during a period of high inflation will also be too much to ask?
I assume the administrators are not attempting to claim they're owed 100% of these frozen assets. Is anyone aware of a reason they cannot release the remaining undisputed cash amount to its legitimate owners as a show of good faith whilst negotiating over the remainder?
|
|
jhamster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 102
Likes: 143
|
Post by jhamster on Nov 15, 2022 14:16:20 GMT
Good to see a suggestion of what seems a good outcome, but is there any indication (or reasonable expectation!) of when any of these "misappropriated" funds, or indeed of the remainder of investors' funds that the adminstrators are currently holding ransom in the client account, might ever find their way back to their legitimate owners?
Last I heard there was a delaying tactic involving needing to agree the terms of how the administrators would take their pound of flesh, presumably to "punish" us for daring to expect the terms of the loan contract to be upheld, and I've not really followed any further machinations in the last few months, being busier with more productive activities... I suppose any form of compensation for the further losses caused as a direct result of the administrators' unilateral decision to freeze all our assets during a period of high inflation will also be too much to ask?
I assume the administrators are not attempting to claim they're owed 100% of these frozen assets. Is anyone aware of a reason they cannot release the remaining undisputed cash amount to its legitimate owners as a show of good faith whilst negotiating over the remainder?
The money would go into the general pot for the administration costs, and unsecured creditors to be distributed when the administration concludes. HMRC is another unsecured creditor as well as M1, and possibly in future M2 might be added to the list. Don't expect much/anything.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 24, 2022 22:29:27 GMT
The money would go into the general pot for the administration costs... ... which seems to me might reduce the perceived need for them to help themselves to a portion of our money that's being held in their client account many months after a court instructed them to pay it to us.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 24, 2022 23:17:40 GMT
The money would go into the general pot for the administration costs... ... which seems to me might reduce the perceived need for them to help themselves to a portion of our money that's being held in their client account many months after a court instructed them to pay it to us. The 'need' arises from their statutory duty to act in the best interests of creditors ... Lendy/RSM is incurring costs that are not for creditors/statutory benefit so need to be paid by the beneficiaries, ie lenders, of the work for doing it. Unfortunately the Court didnt, there is no instruction regarding payment ... the order merely establishes entitlement.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,568
Likes: 6,542
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Dec 22, 2022 19:43:47 GMT
|
|
69m
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 200
|
Post by 69m on Dec 22, 2022 23:58:58 GMT
Maybe I'm missing something, but a £3.4m settlement seems disappointing given that High Court Judge Mr Justice Zacaroli previously stated that the "evidence demonstrates a good arguable case as to the misappropriation of funds in excess of £6.5m" by Brooke and Gordon.
It'd be helpful if the contents of the confidential settlement agreement were 'accidentally' leaked.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,118
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by rocky1 on Dec 23, 2022 5:33:45 GMT
who will they be paying the £3.4m to?and could any of it be used to pay for further costs of their own administration.i suppose a good part of it will be swallowed up by the vultures anyway and lenders will not benefit from any of this even though we seem to be funding every bit of legals/costs and whatever else they can come up with to deplete the coffers.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 23, 2022 10:18:16 GMT
who will they be paying the £3.4m to?and could any of it be used to pay for further costs of their own administration.i suppose a good part of it will be swallowed up by the vultures anyway and lenders will not benefit from any of this even though we seem to be funding every bit of legals/costs and whatever else they can come up with to deplete the coffers. Lendy, so it will form part of the general estate. Admin fees come from the estate so yes it will pay the costs/fees of the administrators for work relating to the general estate. Whether lenders will benefit will depend on being admitted as full creditors which is part of the remaining issues being decided. Once admin fees, preferential creditors have been paid the remaining money will be distributed pro-rata amongst creditors. We arent funding any administration costs/fees, they come from the general estate (except loan specific costs) ... exactly what we fund will depend on the Protocol.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 290
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Dec 23, 2022 11:00:26 GMT
who will they be paying the £3.4m to?and could any of it be used to pay for further costs of their own administration.i suppose a good part of it will be swallowed up by the vultures anyway and lenders will not benefit from any of this even though we seem to be funding every bit of legals/costs and whatever else they can come up with to deplete the coffers. Lendy, so it will form part of the general estate. Admin fees come from the estate so yes it will pay the costs/fees of the administrators for work relating to the general estate. Whether lenders will benefit will depend on being admitted as full creditors which is part of the remaining issues being decided. Once admin fees, preferential creditors have been paid the remaining money will be distributed pro-rata amongst creditors. We arent funding any administration costs/fees, they come from the general estate (except loan specific costs) ... exactly what we fund will depend on the Protocol. the fact they have £3.4m to fund the admin should reflect in the protocol imo but i assume it won't
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 23, 2022 11:53:29 GMT
Lendy, so it will form part of the general estate. Admin fees come from the estate so yes it will pay the costs/fees of the administrators for work relating to the general estate. Whether lenders will benefit will depend on being admitted as full creditors which is part of the remaining issues being decided. Once admin fees, preferential creditors have been paid the remaining money will be distributed pro-rata amongst creditors. We arent funding any administration costs/fees, they come from the general estate (except loan specific costs) ... exactly what we fund will depend on the Protocol. the fact they have £3.4m to fund the admin should reflect in the protocol imo but i assume it won't Totally separate. The fact your plumber is a millionaire doesnt mean he'll charge less for fixing a leak.
|
|