rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Dec 23, 2022 12:57:36 GMT
p2p platforms tell us WE hold first charge on loans so we are we not classed as right up there at the top of the feeding chain when the sh*t hits the fan.WE funded these schemes and everything else that comes with them so surely should be classed as creditors for getting our own money back.instead we have all this quistclose,berkleys applegates,etc,etc,to contend with.
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Dec 23, 2022 18:54:10 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. You can't expect larger than a £3.4m settlement for £6.5m misappropriation. How else would crime pay?!
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Dec 27, 2022 9:59:48 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. You can't expect larger than a £3.4m settlement for £6.5m misappropriation. How else would crime pay?! as part of this confidential agreement does this mean that brooke and gordon are off the hook now with a slap on the wrist.where is the other half of the funds ending up.will they also end up with a good wedge from lendy entitlement and other fees put into their T&Cs.they should both at least be banned from running any more of their schemes and maybe the good old FCA could fine them a few million each.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,850
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 27, 2022 14:39:42 GMT
You can't expect larger than a £3.4m settlement for £6.5m misappropriation. How else would crime pay?! as part of this confidential agreement does this mean that brooke and gordon are off the hook now with a slap on the wrist.where is the other half of the funds ending up.will they also end up with a good wedge from lendy entitlement and other fees put into their T&Cs.they should both at least be banned from running any more of their schemes and maybe the good old FCA could fine them a few million each. There is still an FCA investigation. Lendy entitlement is so far down the pecking order post directions hearing that the chance of Lendy getting anything from the loans is almost nil, fees go into the general pot for distribution to creditors after RSM fees. They aren't creditors except through Lendy Group (no longer exists) & the landlord (subject the settlement agreement)
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Dec 27, 2022 17:29:14 GMT
thanks for that ilmoro.brooke has a charge against lendy group ltd for all and sundry is there anything left there that he will gain from.i really hope the FCA try and make up for the mistakes they made with these p2p platforms and their directors conduct and punish them where it hurts.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 290
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Dec 28, 2022 8:26:36 GMT
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. That's a really poor analogy. Investors should be returned as much of the money they lent to borrowers as possible before taking a haircut. If the admin has costs in doing the recovery they should take it from the cash in the business account not from lenders money that isn't theirs.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,850
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 28, 2022 9:13:44 GMT
Totally separate. The fact your plumber is a millionaire doesnt mean he'll charge less for fixing a leak. That's a really poor analogy. Investors should be returned as much of the money they lent to borrowers as possible before taking a haircut. If the admin has costs in doing the recovery they should take it from the cash in the business account not from lenders money that isn't theirs. Unfortunately that isnt how it works in Insolvency law. The admin are charging costs & fees for doing a job, recovering trust assets & that has to be paid by those who benefit from the work. The general estate is for the benefit of creditors, creditors get no benefit from the recovery of trust assets so using money from the general estate is unfair. For M2 lenders, in relation to their specific loans it doesnt make any difference if the general estate has £10 or £10m, the cost of recovering the loans is the cost of recovering the loans, same as the cost of fixing a pipe is the cost of fixing a pipe whether done by Charlie Mullins or Dave the Pipe. The general estate is only relevant for M2 lenders as creditors as they will have a claim for at least their outstanding balance.
|
|
merlin99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 269
|
Post by merlin99 on Dec 28, 2022 11:54:12 GMT
That's a really poor analogy. Investors should be returned as much of the money they lent to borrowers as possible before taking a haircut. If the admin has costs in doing the recovery they should take it from the cash in the business account not from lenders money that isn't theirs. Unfortunately that isnt how it works in Insolvency law. The admin are charging costs & fees for doing a job, recovering trust assets & that has to be paid by those who benefit from the work. The general estate is for the benefit of creditors, creditors get no benefit from the recovery of trust assets so using money from the general estate is unfair. For M2 lenders, in relation to their specific loans it doesnt make any difference if the general estate has £10 or £10m, the cost of recovering the loans is the cost of recovering the loans, same as the cost of fixing a pipe is the cost of fixing a pipe whether done by Charlie Mullins or Dave the Pipe. The general estate is only relevant for M2 lenders as creditors as they will have a claim for at least their outstanding balance. Unfortunately Ilmoro has got it absolutely right. It is also the reason why I thought some long time back that we would be lucky to get back about 20% of the original loan values, then only if we were very lucky. My guess is that the perpetrators of this confidence trick will, over time, make money out of this. In fact I would not be surprised if they haven't already done so. Anyone who was working a con like this would have probably been squirreling money away by various means from the off. As to the FCA involvement. I cannot believe they will do a thing. That also applies to the other P2P cons as well. Again my guess is that no one will go to jail or have their assets confiscated. Though of course they should!
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Dec 28, 2022 14:41:28 GMT
As to the FCA involvement. I cannot believe they will do a thing. That also applies to the other P2P cons as well. Again my guess is that no one will go to jail or have their assets confiscated. Though of course they should! Well the FCA are pursuing the directors of Collateral through the courts. Part of the difficulty is that there is a backlog of cases for the FCA to consider as there is certainly prima facie evidence of wrong doing across a number of platforms and directors.
|
|
merlin99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 269
|
Post by merlin99 on Dec 28, 2022 15:20:57 GMT
As to the FCA involvement. I cannot believe they will do a thing. That also applies to the other P2P cons as well. Again my guess is that no one will go to jail or have their assets confiscated. Though of course they should! Well the FCA are pursuing the directors of Collateral through the courts. Part of the difficulty is that there is a backlog of cases for the FCA to consider as there is certainly prima facie evidence of wrong doing across a number of platforms and directors. Yes but what is the realistic chances of them being convicted? Further more if convicted what chances of realistic penalties being awarded and awards made to those they cheated?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Dec 28, 2022 16:06:57 GMT
Well the FCA are pursuing the directors of Collateral through the courts. Part of the difficulty is that there is a backlog of cases for the FCA to consider as there is certainly prima facie evidence of wrong doing across a number of platforms and directors. Yes but what is the realistic chances of them being convicted? Further more if convicted what chances of realistic penalties being awarded and awards made to those they cheated? I don't know enough about the case to speculate ... so I won't.
|
|
merlin99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 269
|
Post by merlin99 on Dec 29, 2022 17:36:13 GMT
Yes but what is the realistic chances of them being convicted? Further more if convicted what chances of realistic penalties being awarded and awards made to those they cheated? I don't know enough about the case to speculate ... so I won't. Well said Mousey. However I believe that history has shown that the FCA are not very good at handing down appropriate punishments in similar matters. Mostly punishments often take the form of banning the perpetrators from being Company directors for a few years, whilst the wives or partners take over the reigns and the miscreant sits in the shadows. I was told rightly or wrongly awhile back that the FCA will run a mile to avoid trying to recover funds from miscreants. This is because it costs them money to do so and there is no budget available to fund it and little chance of them recovering costs.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 5,693
|
Post by duck on Dec 30, 2022 6:07:01 GMT
....... I was told rightly or wrongly awhile back that the FCA will run a mile to avoid trying to recover funds from miscreants. This is because it costs them money to do so and there is no budget available to fund it and little chance of them recovering costs. Not completely accurate. As you would expect the FCA funding model is rather opaque. They maintain that they are funded by fees from regulated companies and therefore have to be very careful to spend money carefully .......... this is true. But there is another funding stream that is seldom examined, fines. So far this year the FCA have levied fines of over £200m.How this money can be spent is dictated by parliament, it has to be used solely into investigations into regulated businesses. (whilst Col was not regulated* the FCA are paying for the investigation / prosecution) At the end of the year any of the Funds raised from fines not spent is given to the Treasury. You can see the amounts handed over each year in the FCAs annual report/accounts. This handing over of excess money at year end allows the FCA to make the often heard statement 'we cannot pay compensation since we do not have any money of our own'. One of the problems with the FCA has been lack of ambition to chase miscreants, often using 'out of scope', 'outside the perimeter' arguments when challenged. The same is true of the Serious Farce Fraud Office. To these bodies public image is paramount so they tackle a limited number of 'easy' cases and often set the bar low when it comes to recoveries. It should be noted that the big fines on UK banks that the FCA have levied are nearly all after 'guilt' has been proved by another regulator (often the US regulator) the FCA are very rarely the first off the blocks. * A debatable point but the position the FCA took from day 1.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Dec 30, 2022 10:49:51 GMT
well who was fooling who? in july 2018 LENDY gained full FCA authorisation following a detailed end to end assesment of its business model and operating model. brooke said at the time he was very pleased as it had been a long and challenging journey that had involved detailed reviews of processes and policies and is now a validation of their efforts.the FCA by rubber stamping LENDY led to many lenders who were already having doubts into thinking this was a proper outfit being run properly by the directors code of conduct and principals.were the FCA sleep walking when they entered lendy towers. as i see things they are as much to blame as the directors for what followed and should now make sure that these p2p platforms are brought to account and maybe their people who were involved at the time need sorting as well.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Dec 30, 2022 14:40:52 GMT
The difficulty with authorisations was revealed in an FCA e-mail dated January 2017: "The overall conclusion was that we all agree that PtP often does not provide a good proposition to both borrowers and retail investors, but the bar for rejecting applications is too high. EMO [Enforcement and Market Oversight] Legal basically advises against rejecting any of them given that we cannot substantiate that the business models are not sustainable
It looks like legalese supersedes our internal risk views which as a risk manager I find hard to accept (I am surprised about the burden of proof apparently being on our side)."I understand that Liam Brooke and Tim Gordon had an interview at the FCA on 26/7/2017. I understand on 9/8/2017 Lendy received an "Outcome of Interviews Letter" from the FCA which was described as "not positive on either" and that the "FCA won't sign off their applications". I also understand that the FCA wrote to Lendy on 6 March 2018 saying that a “minded to refuse” (Lendy’s full Peer to Peer authorisation) letter was being prepared.
|
|