Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,567
Likes: 6,537
|
Post by Mousey on Aug 18, 2021 13:39:12 GMT
Case update
Yesterday 17/08/2021 the court ordered:
That a 'third party' namely the company TMDL, whom I understand owns "Land in Lytham St Annes", should pay £664,919.25 to Asertis Ltd,the company who FS sold the litigation rights to.
In turn this payment will correspondingly reduce the amount of money the forth defendant "Mr JU" is owed by TMDL AND Will correspondingly reduce the amount of money owed by Mr JU to Asertis Ltd.
|
|
huxs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 218
|
Post by huxs on Aug 18, 2021 13:51:10 GMT
Case update
Yesterday 17/08/2021 the court ordered:
That a 'third party' namely the company TMDL, whom I understand owns "Land in Lytham St Annes", should pay £664,919.25 to Asertis Ltd,the company who FS sold the litigation rights to.
In turn this payment will correspondingly reduce the amount of money the forth defendant "Mr JU" is owed by TMDL AND Will correspondingly reduce the amount of money owed by Mr JU to Asertis Ltd.
Does that mean we will see some of this ?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,838
Likes: 11,067
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 18, 2021 19:14:33 GMT
Case update
Yesterday 17/08/2021 the court ordered:
That a 'third party' namely the company TMDL, whom I understand owns "Land in Lytham St Annes", should pay £664,919.25 to Asertis Ltd,the company who FS sold the litigation rights to.
In turn this payment will correspondingly reduce the amount of money the forth defendant "Mr JU" is owed by TMDL AND Will correspondingly reduce the amount of money owed by Mr JU to Asertis Ltd.
Think there is an error in this. Based on the text the arrows should both point to Asertis TDML & JU both owe money to Asertis and TDML owes money to JU. No money is going from Asertis. Diagram should be three in a line TMDL- JU - Asertis with arrows in between and an extra arrow between TDML and Asertis bypassing JU?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,567
Likes: 6,537
|
Post by Mousey on Aug 18, 2021 19:39:16 GMT
Case update Yesterday 17/08/2021 the court ordered: That a 'third party' namely the company TMDL, whom I understand owns "Land in Lytham St Annes", should pay £664,919.25 to Asertis Ltd,the company who FS sold the litigation rights to.
In turn this payment will correspondingly reduce the amount of money the forth defendant "Mr JU" is owed by TMDL AND Will correspondingly reduce the amount of money owed by Mr JU to Asertis Ltd. Think there is an error in this. Based on the text the arrows should both point to Asertis TDML & JU both owe money to Asertis and TDML owes money to JU. No money is going from Asertis. Diagram should be three in a line TMDL- JU - Asertis with arrows in between and an extra arrow between TDML and Asertis bypassing JU? huxs - if the cash is paid I'm not sure what the agreement is between Asertis and FS
ilmoro Assuming payments made as per the Order then Asertis are giving debt forgiveness of £664k to JU, and JU is giving debt forgiveness of £664k to TMD, and TMD are giving £664k cash to Asertis. Ie it all balances out (excluding costs of £208.50).
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,841
Likes: 2,756
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 18, 2021 22:10:03 GMT
Case update
Yesterday 17/08/2021 the court ordered:
That a 'third party' namely the company TMDL, whom I understand owns "Land in Lytham St Annes", should pay £664,919.25 to Asertis Ltd,the company who FS sold the litigation rights to.
In turn this payment will correspondingly reduce the amount of money the forth defendant "Mr JU" is owed by TMDL AND Will correspondingly reduce the amount of money owed by Mr JU to Asertis Ltd.
Think there is an error in this. Based on the text the arrows should both point to Asertis TDML & JU both owe money to Asertis and TDML owes money to JU. No money is going from Asertis. Diagram should be three in a line TMDL- JU - Asertis with arrows in between and an extra arrow between TDML and Asertis bypassing JU? Did you figure that out yourself or along with many of your other comments that would typically take hours of research did you copy/paste it from somewhere else ? Or are you paid to conduct your research ?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,838
Likes: 11,067
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 18, 2021 22:55:19 GMT
Think there is an error in this. Based on the text the arrows should both point to Asertis TDML & JU both owe money to Asertis and TDML owes money to JU. No money is going from Asertis. Diagram should be three in a line TMDL- JU - Asertis with arrows in between and an extra arrow between TDML and Asertis bypassing JU? Did you figure that out yourself or along with many of your other comments that would typically take hours of research did you copy/paste it from somewhere else ? Or are you paid to conduct your research ? Well obviously I didnt figure it out at all as I misunderstood what the diagram was trying to say but yes, as they say, all errors are my own work. Not sure why it would take hours of research and most of my comments dont, but they are based on a collective knowledge gathered over many years. a reasonable memory and basic ability to use google to look up detail recalled vaguely. Anything copied and paste from elsewhere is generally cited as such. Nope not paid, wish I was. So guess Ill just have to put what ever benefits others have derived down to altruism
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Aug 19, 2021 7:25:06 GMT
don't agree - this looks correct to me - as I see it Antony T is the primary charge holder (subject to confirmation) and is he getting what he is owed
To answer other questions - yes - as I see it - this will reduce the balance available to FS investors
If nervous and heavily invested then I suggest you now sit down
According to the administrators AM03 report - the available balance to FS will be £151K!
I wonder just how professional FS have been with our money....
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
Member is Online
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 19, 2021 16:38:05 GMT
According to the administrators AM03 report - the available balance to FS will be £151K! Is that correct? As I read it... Section 9.6 of the AM3 states: " After provision for costs, this leaves an estimated surplus of approximately £150,714 which would be payable under the Unsworth Charge, subject to the Joint Administrators clarifying the liability outstanding and legal beneficiary of any payment under this" and, taking the JA's clarifications as read, at section 2.30 we have (my emphasis): " It is understood that an amount in excess of £2M remains outstanding under the Unsworth Charge which in the event of a surplus after payment to Mr Toby will be payable to Asertis Ltd under the Declaration of Trust. This will be verified by The Joint Administrators in due course." and then, going back to the FS/CG update from 30/01/2020 (my [clarification] and emphasis) " It was agreed that we would explore the possibility of finding a third party to acquire the litigation, and several offers were received. Following consideration of the offers, terms were agreed [with Asertis Ltd] on a 70:30 split in favour of FS (70% of the net litigation proceeds will be received by FS)." Based on the above, Asertis get the Unsworth surplus of which FS stands to get 70% after Asertis' costs. In other words, FS investors will likely get diddly squat. That, unfortunately, is my reading of the situation.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Aug 19, 2021 18:59:43 GMT
we are clearly going to get diddly-squat - not sure as per 9.6 of AM03 if the amount includes the Asertis costs - whatever we are splittings hairs As the document states legal entitlement has still to be confirmed so we may get zero on that score alone
I am still thinking about this one - something is extremely wrong here
looks to me as if TMDL was put into receivership in Nov 2013 and in jan 2020 ANTHONY T had a charge over the company in terms of a debenture over fixed and floating assets - don't recall being told about this!
How the hell could he do this as FS had a charge on the land - well maybe they didn't! From my holding in 2017
So if FS had the first charge then why all this legal action?
First question has Anthony T been shafted by TMLD ? Looks possible to me! We need to know more about this chap but I stress there no evidence of him doing anything wrong
Second question - has there been a cosy relationship between the developers and FS or to put another way - fraud!
TMDL has charges to Anthony T as mentioned and first charge? legal charge to John U etc dec 2009 second legal charge to others (will research them) Dec 2009 legal charge to Solicitors tied in with Mark C etc legal charge to JU and others I think!
So how can FS justify their statements when asking for our money?
I also note from TMLD accounts 2019 we have negative retained earnings of £520.2K so I wonder where that come from and I wonder if that can be accounted for - yeah right!
What a total bloody disgrace...
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Aug 19, 2021 20:45:42 GMT
I don't follow the FS shenanigans anymore, it all hurts my head, but SURELY the Directors are going to be charged?
I mean, you could drown in the evidence!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Aug 20, 2021 7:26:56 GMT
Been thinking about this and going through the administrators report The only conclusion I can reach is that this is blatant fraud and we investors were lied to but any other explanations warmly welcomed!
Maybe FS thought this one was dead cert and would raise millions so they could have covered their tracks - if that is the case then they are stupid and naive as well as totally dishonest - throw the book at them - they have cheated decent people including pensioners out of a vast amount of money.
Disgusting
|
|
merlin99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 269
|
Post by merlin99 on Aug 20, 2021 9:01:59 GMT
This I fear is just one of many cons pulled by FS directors on a very trusting and mainly old investors. I am fully aware of another loan that through out has been fraudulent to say the least and given the nature of the beast there must indeed be more.
I have hoped all along that the FSA would act as there is so much evidence now in the public domain it is making them look almost complicit in these frauds due to their inactivity. However it is just possible that they are holding fire whilst the winding-up of FS is taking place.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Aug 20, 2021 14:03:02 GMT
This I fear is just one of many cons pulled by FS directors on a very trusting and mainly old investors. I am fully aware of another loan that through out has been fraudulent to say the least and given the nature of the beast there must indeed be more. I have hoped all along that the FSA would act as there is so much evidence now in the public domain it is making them look almost complicit in these frauds due to their inactivity. However it is just possible that they are holding fire whilst the winding-up of FS is taking place. There is a reason Noman swiftly left in the early days. He almost certainly soon got the measure of the "integrity" of his fellow Directors and quickly decided to leg it.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Aug 20, 2021 14:43:09 GMT
exactly - at least there are still some decent people in business although I see no evidence of any at FS!
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Aug 23, 2021 13:40:41 GMT
'Leg it' is hardly the highest standard of business integrity imo. Ymmv.
|
|