iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 31, 2021 16:27:53 GMT
Justice has apparently prevailed? <snip>I await the administrators next move with great interest. I expect it will be aimed to try and shaft us lenders again! I agree justice has prevailed and the benefit will (hopefully) be that this decision informs other platforms and - more importantly - IP's in their decision on how they approach P2P platform wind-down. Without doubt, in my opinion, C&G's variable approach to how fees were calculated and charged were clear indications that they (C&G) were, to no small extent, making it up as they went along. However, this 'success' is a two edged sword, IMO. C&G have already given indication of how they might react to 'losing' the case. (I use 'losing' in the loosest possible sense, as I doubt they will be at any significant financial disadvantage as a result of this outcome.) Furthermore, I'm not convinced a scenario exists where investors will see any increased returns. Best case - lengthy delays, amneded charging scheme (absorbing any logical returns inventors may expect from loan that have already beenredeemed) Worst case - change of IPs, lengthy delays, new charging scheme, reduced returns to investors. Mousey - any indication that Raj Kumar & Co (as the most affected parties) can appeal? (edit: also asked by micky )
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Mar 31, 2021 16:40:24 GMT
Justice has apparently prevailed? <snip>I await the administrators next move with great interest. I expect it will be aimed to try and shaft us lenders again! I agree justice has prevailed and the benefit will (hopefully) be that this decision informs other platforms and - more importantly - IP's in their decision on how they approach P2P platform wind-down. Without doubt, in my opinion, C&G's variable approach to how fees were calculated and charged were clear indications that they (C&G) were, to no small extent, making it up as they went along. However, this 'success' is a two edged sword, IMO. C&G have already given indication of how they might react to 'losing' the case. (I use 'losing' in the loosest possible sense, as I doubt they will be at any significant financial disadvantage as a result of this outcome.) Furthermore, I'm not convinced a scenario exists where investors will see any increased returns. Best case - lengthy delays, amneded charging scheme (absorbing any logical returns inventors may expect from loan that have already beenredeemed) Worst case - change of IPs, lengthy delays, new charging scheme, reduced returns to investors. Mousey - any indication that Raj Kumar & Co (as the most affected parties) can appeal? (edit: also asked by micky ) So C&G's 2.5% + VAT fees aren't enough for them? Can anyone explain why?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,076
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 31, 2021 16:46:41 GMT
I agree justice has prevailed and the benefit will (hopefully) be that this decision informs other platforms and - more importantly - IP's in their decision on how they approach P2P platform wind-down. Without doubt, in my opinion, C&G's variable approach to how fees were calculated and charged were clear indications that they (C&G) were, to no small extent, making it up as they went along. However, this 'success' is a two edged sword, IMO. C&G have already given indication of how they might react to 'losing' the case. (I use 'losing' in the loosest possible sense, as I doubt they will be at any significant financial disadvantage as a result of this outcome.) Furthermore, I'm not convinced a scenario exists where investors will see any increased returns. Best case - lengthy delays, amneded charging scheme (absorbing any logical returns inventors may expect from loan that have already beenredeemed) Worst case - change of IPs, lengthy delays, new charging scheme, reduced returns to investors. Mousey - any indication that Raj Kumar & Co (as the most affected parties) can appeal? (edit: also asked by micky ) So C&G's 2.5% + VAT fees aren't enough for them? Can anyone explain why? Because the assets arent realising the predicted sums and are costing more than expected to realise I would assume. Alternatively, they got their maths wrong
|
|
Garage246
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 209
|
Post by Garage246 on Mar 31, 2021 16:47:57 GMT
The judgement also seems to support that lenders capital must be returned in full before deduction of FS direct costs (whatever they are). As these are described in the T&Cs section 6.2. If that is the case and with many loans not having capital fully covered, then in theory there should be more than the 5% to come back....
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Mar 31, 2021 17:09:42 GMT
More likely to be their underestimate but what happens when your builder gets his sums wrong? He has to work harder and suffers a loss!!
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Mar 31, 2021 17:11:01 GMT
Well as it seems that the judgement is in Lenders favour but had this been left uncontested, 5% of all loan recoveries would have been paid by CG & Co to FS, which has now been deemed unlawful. Shouldn't it follow therefore, that the cost (if any) of rectifying that potential maladministration be borne by either CG & Co or deducted from any funds that FS may have got ?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2021 17:11:30 GMT
Mousey - any indication that Raj Kumar & Co (as the most affected parties) can appeal? (edit: also asked by micky ) Any party can certainly apply to appeal. It may well have been that permission was requested from the single judge this morning. I'll keep an eye out
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,076
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 31, 2021 17:16:23 GMT
More likely to be their underestimate but what happens when your builder gets his sums wrong? He has to work harder and suffers a loss!! He defaults and you suffer a loss?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Mar 31, 2021 17:24:46 GMT
A bombshell at Para 18: "In Autumn 2018, [Raj Kumar] became aware that the Company was subject to an investigation by the FCA that arose when it came to light that the Company had been rolling over loans using funding from the Company’s client account."
The FCA knew in 2018?!
Yes, they did, and I could not say previously due to an NDA. Now that its out in public, maybe R** +Ni*** can explain why they were still canvassing lenders to place funds into FS??
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Mar 31, 2021 17:39:27 GMT
can we now expect a update from C&G any time soon as to how they will be continuing with this administration. will funds previously wrongly taken from lenders be returned and will they be paying their own costs for rectifying their cavalier/we can do what we like attitude with lenders funds.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2021 17:48:39 GMT
can we now expect a update from C&G any time soon We've had a comment from Jonathon Avery-Gee on Facebook:
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Mar 31, 2021 17:59:36 GMT
More likely to be their underestimate but what happens when your builder gets his sums wrong? He has to work harder and suffers a loss!! He defaults and you suffer a loss? As a Contractor (Est 1979) with 50 employees and a signed contract that is not a viable option
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Mar 31, 2021 18:10:42 GMT
A bombshell at Para 18: "In Autumn 2018, [Raj Kumar] became aware that the Company was subject to an investigation by the FCA that arose when it came to light that the Company had been rolling over loans using funding from the Company’s client account."
The FCA knew in 2018?!
How did the FCA let them get away with describing themselves as the 'lender' in the master agreement when P2P legislation specifically prohibits platforms lending themselves? Clearly it was yet another document that the FCA required to be submitted as part of the Change of Control procedure in Autumn 2018, and then never even had the inclination to read through what they had requested. Pen pushers at best comes to mind.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 31, 2021 18:27:31 GMT
can we now expect a update from C&G any time soon We've had a comment from Jonathon Avery-Gee on Facebook: That's got to be a wind-up account, surely?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,076
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 31, 2021 18:37:09 GMT
We've had a comment from Jonathon Avery-Gee on Facebook: That's got to be a wind-up account, surely? No, its him.
|
|