eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 747
Likes: 738
|
Post by eeyore on Oct 31, 2021 11:43:20 GMT
Remember, the administrators have a legal duty to maximise the return for creditors. Agreed, but then we enter into the legal grey area of whether lenders on loans managed by MoneyThing should be treated as creditors. Remind me, has this been agreed in the MoneyThing administration?
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Oct 31, 2021 11:58:07 GMT
Good summary if there was trust in the process,ask the Lendy and FS lenders. You highlight the core issue LENDERS ARE NOT CLASSED AS CREDITORS. Made very clear by Moorfields especially in their July 2021 report which was copied to Lenders JUST FOR INFORMATION
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,906
Likes: 11,128
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 31, 2021 12:29:25 GMT
Remember, the administrators have a legal duty to maximise the return for creditors. Agreed, but then we enter into the legal grey area of whether lenders on loans managed by MoneyThing should be treated as creditors. Remind me, has this been agreed in the MoneyThing administration? No, it hasnt been agreed for any P2P administration in relation to trust assets. In the case of the FS & L the administrators admitted lenders as contingent creditors for a nominal sum to allow them to vote on the proposals & the formation of a CC (Lendy M1 are creditors of course).
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 831
|
Post by 11025 on Oct 31, 2021 13:24:53 GMT
Good summary if there was trust in the process,ask the Lendy and FS lenders. You highlight the core issue LENDERS ARE NOT CLASSED AS CREDITORS. Made very clear by Moorfields especially in their July 2021 report which was copied to Lenders JUST FOR INFORMATION I am not up to speed on this but could it not be argued that Moorfields have a conflict of interest here as they were already paid advisors to MT prior to the admin situation ?
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 331
Likes: 368
|
Post by mah on Oct 31, 2021 21:08:10 GMT
Exactly. They were not only involved pre-administration, but they were actively engaged in Monitoring and Overseeing quite a few of the Moneything Loans (e.g., MTAS844), to the extent of arranging and issuing Further Advances to existing Moneything Loans and also completing some of the Builds themselves (e.g., MTAS933).
Moreover, they went to the Court to resolve the Conflict of Interest that was created as they were the Admins of both MCL & MSTL and are requesting the Court to Appoint a 3rd Conflict Administrator (with further fees / costs). Wouldn't it be simpler and more cost effective 'Conflict Removal' if they remove themselves as the Admins of 1 of the Companies (or even both) and appoint a 2nd Admin for that Company (thereby avoiding to appoint a 3rd one) ? May be I'm missing something here.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 4,214
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 1, 2021 19:21:45 GMT
Well done,pick on the Pensioner (assumed) who wrote to the Judge to share their experience.It got read,a win, amongst the emotive waffle some key issue were highlighted. Assuming you have sight of the objections to the notice the issues are well documented by a collective group of informed members. I did not agree with everything 2115 said in hearing but it looks like 2 out of 3 outcomes that the individual Respondents wanted they got. The fees are the core issue. What about if the loanbook were categorised,by an independent auditor who is neutral,completes risk assessment. Objective = close MTCL (Moorfields & red tag fees) and orderly quick wind down (FCA approved) of MSTL by: Live loans = sell on,if they are saleable! Default loans : Green = sell on like live loans (doubt they are really live as C19 has screwed them up,look at the business they are in) Amber = sell to debt collector (like Zopa do now) Red = close it now,crystalise loss,lenders use in tax returns. Therefore stopping the endless rinsing of the depleted (potential only,no guarantee)realisations pot by Moorfields (the grinder),Red Tag(MT founders),new Conflict Mediator JM (excellent reputation in IP circles !). Or go through the Collateral,Funding Secure,Lendy 3/4 year experience with no payouts and frustrated lenders left hanging. Above is just an opinion,like yours,with my final goal of exit P2P "wild west" debacle where everybody is swimming in sh1t. I was thinking of gifting my realisations to charities,but they probably don't want to touch it with barge pole. Starting with the easy things, we know investor 2155 is a pensioner because in their email to the judge they refered to 'a massive loss on this loan for my wife and I who are pensioners'.
The reason I commented on this email was they say they are corresponding on behalf of other MT investors. I'm not certain what you mean by the objections to the notice, but if you are referring to the 30 pages of emails in the court bundle, then yes I have seen them. The matter to be determined is whether the administrator should be able to take money from the lender pot. Within the 30 pages I see lots of complaints that we are losing money, the administrator is incompetent or MT's plan to run down the loan book is sh*te but none of these are relevant. If there are key issue within the 30 pages, could you summarise the most important 2 or three of these?
The financial regulators have a well established procedure for dealing with companies in administration. The last thing any of them will want is to start looking at alternative mechanisms. The very last thing the FCA will want to do is get anywhere near P2P companies in trouble. So regarding your alternative plan to run down the loan book, can you clarify:
- who is legally empowered to stop the administration process and instruct that an alternative mechanism is put in place?
- what happens if MT investors object to the change?
- who will identify suitable inependent accountants to categories the loan book?
- who will appoint the accountants?
- who will decide what criteria are used when deciding whether a loan is considered red, amber or green?
- what happens if MT investors objet to the category their loans are put into?
- who will undertake the disposal of the loan book (assuming the accountants are not qualified to do this)?
- who will defend legal challenges from disgruntled borrowers who threaten court action?
- what happens to loans that nobody wants?
Finally, in relation to all the items above, how much will it cost, how long will it take and where is the money coming from to fund it.
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Nov 1, 2021 19:51:35 GMT
Oh no rumbled (maybe, maybe not ! ) by the "agent 69" - a spy with interesting digits. So if you have seen all the documents you are either a real spy or a Moneything lender as I do not think they should be seen by you if you are the former. Great questions so why don't you join MTAG and help sort the debacle we are in ! Good action groups have robust discussion and you could add value to that, possibly ?
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Nov 1, 2021 23:00:35 GMT
Oh no rumbled (maybe, maybe not ! ) by the "agent 69" - a spy with interesting digits. So if you have seen all the documents you are either a real spy or a Moneything lender as I do not think they should be seen by you if you are the former. Great questions so why don't you join MTAG and help sort the debacle we are in ! Good action groups have robust discussion and you could add value to that, possibly ? I suppose the bottom line here is that in a relatively short period of time a judge will need to be convinced that a viable alternative is achievable and possibly also that it carries the support of a majority of lenders and will not adversely impinge on other creditors rights. Robust discussion, feeling angry and reinventing traffic lights may fall a bit short of that requirement. I doubt the queries agent69 has raised would even scratch the surface of the assurances and details the Judge would be looking for. Maybe there is a potential role for MTAG to gain some relationship with the process on a formal basis.
|
|
shw
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by shw on Nov 2, 2021 5:43:54 GMT
Good point. Maybe Lenders should be treated as Creditors and/or Trustees of MSTL therefore involved in sign off of fees to be claimed out of the Security Trustee company as Borrower's loan interest and capital are returned ? It might enable a speedier less costly court process. However it takes 2 to tango and that ain't happening right now. Despite your forum ID you seem quite sensible on occasions. Are you an MT lender ? If so join MTAG and be heard amongst "like minded" lenders.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 4,214
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 2, 2021 10:16:20 GMT
Oh no rumbled (maybe, maybe not ! ) by the "agent 69" - a spy with interesting digits. So if you have seen all the documents you are either a real spy or a Moneything lender as I do not think they should be seen by you if you are the former. Great questions so why don't you join MTAG and help sort the debacle we are in ! Good action groups have robust discussion and you could add value to that, possibly ? I suppose the bottom line here is that in a relatively short period of time a judge will need to be convinced that a viable alternative is achievable and possibly also that it carries the support of a majority of lenders and will not adversely impinge on other creditors rights. Robust discussion, feeling angry and reinventing traffic lights may fall a bit short of that requirement. I doubt the queries agent69 has raised would even scratch the surface of the assurances and details the Judge would be looking for. Maybe there is a potential role for MTAG to gain some relationship with the process on a formal basis. Sorry sir, I'l try harder next time.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 4,214
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 2, 2021 11:23:30 GMT
Oh no rumbled (maybe, maybe not ! ) by the "agent 69" - a spy with interesting digits. So if you have seen all the documents you are either a real spy or a Moneything lender as I do not think they should be seen by you if you are the former. Great questions so why don't you join MTAG and help sort the debacle we are in ! Good action groups have robust discussion and you could add value to that, possibly ? I wasn't in Lendy, but if I was I would have been happy to chip in a few quid to LAG, as they had a very simple legal challenge (that the waterfall was not legally enforceable) and the consequences of a sucessful challenge were obvious (large sums of money getting diverted into the investor pot). However, when I look at MTAG I see a small disparate group of investors advancing ever more fanciful solutions. It comes across that they are all running around like headless chickens. So if you look at the two issues:
1) should the administrator be allowed to dip into the lender pot - if MTAG are going to challenge this they need a coherent argument (which they don't appear to have at the momnet). They also need some money as they will need to fund the legal challenge with no guarantee of receiving their costs (I don't buy into the suggestion that the judges comments on costs were in any way encouraging. He could hardly deny the possibility of costs given that he hadn't heard the legal arguments). When Col went into administration the FCA objected to Gordon being appointed as administrator. At the preliminary hearing Gordon said he would defend his position vigourosly, but when it came to the main hearing he didn't even turn up. I wonder if MTAG might go the same way?
2) Is there a better solution to administration - you would have thought that there should be, but plenty of bigger platforms have gone pop without anyone coming up with such a solution. And as I've said several times before (still waiting for an answer) how much would it cost to fund a legal challenge and where is the money coming from.
So would I consider joining MTAG in it's current form? - not in a million years. I can only see them adding delay and additional cost to the process, and offering only minimal potential of increasing investor returns.
|
|
|
Post by westcountryfunder on Nov 2, 2021 15:50:23 GMT
So would I consider joining MTAG in it's current form? - not in a million years. I can only see them adding delay and additional cost to the process, and offering only minimal potential of increasing investor returns. I very much regret to say that I entirely agree with you. Nevertheless I wish MTAG every success, even though I reckon some members will work themselves up into a frenzy, possibly have to shell out from their own pockets in order to pursue whatever it is they propose to do, and achieve nothing. Just as long as extra costs don't impinge on the dribs and drabs all investors may otherwise receive. I've long since given up expecting any return whatsoever from Collateral, FS, Lendy. I had hoped to get some back from MT, but I'm now counting on nothing. The real gripe is not the likely obvious risks with P2P lending, it's the conduct of those running many of these companies, the conduct of far too many borrowers, the extraordinary shortcomings of the supervisory regime, and a winding up procedure which is inappropriate (there being no statutory alternative). Lesson learned. A very hard lesson. Time to move on before I'm eaten up with rage.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 507
Likes: 363
|
Post by toffeeboy on Nov 2, 2021 15:56:16 GMT
So would I consider joining MTAG in it's current form? - not in a million years. I can only see them adding delay and additional cost to the process, and offering only minimal potential of increasing investor returns. I very much regret to say that I entirely agree with you. Nevertheless I wish MTAG every success, even though I reckon some members will work themselves up into a frenzy, possibly have to shell out from their own pockets in order to pursue whatever it is they propose to do, and achieve nothing. Just as long as extra costs don't impinge on the dribs and drabs all investors may otherwise receive. I've long since given up expecting any return whatsoever from Collateral, FS, Lendy. I had hoped to get some back from MT, but I'm now counting on nothing. The real gripe is not the likely obvious risks with P2P lending, it's the conduct of those running many of these companies, the conduct of far too many borrowers, the extraordinary shortcomings of the supervisory regime, and a winding up procedure which is inappropriate (there being no statutory alternative). Lesson learned. A very hard lesson. Time to move on before I'm eaten up with rage. The question regarding MT comes back to FCA shortcomings as always, one requirement of FCA approval was adequate run down procedures, can't remember the exact term used. The fact that we are in the situation we are in shows that this wasn't the case so how was MT given FCA approval.
|
|
|
Post by minionbob on Nov 2, 2021 18:47:05 GMT
I have raised a complaint with the FCA with regard to Moneything on the basis of the inadequate plans for platform failure and rundown that the FCA approved as part of their oversight. The remedy for me is for the FCA to stump up to cover the required additional monies required by the administrators. The complaint has been acknowledged but emphasises the fact that there is no effective control or appeal to any FCA failings or inadequacies so I'm not expecting much positive to address the failings, however another complaint that won't be welcomed by the FCA management which is probably all that will be achieved,
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 4,214
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 5, 2021 12:15:00 GMT
I see more legal documents have been posted on the MT site.
Interesting that the 21 respondents (those listed in schedule 1) don't include the investor identified in the skeleton argument as investor 2155 (who appears to be the promoter of the challenge).
|
|