adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,829 
Likes: 4,017
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 11, 2022 18:31:46 GMT
correct - I am not paying £136+ for the reports etc. As I said I really don't see the connection between our loans against assets and creditors to FS - however much is all this legal rubbish going to cost
and who is going to pay it - I bloody wonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jul 11, 2022 20:12:04 GMT
So according to the update, this company signed an agreement with FS to use the money for underwriting loans.
Under what scenario could any claim be made against other lenders money rather than a creditor charge against FS.
. all the loans underwritten using this money have gone bad
. the money was used for the wrong loan(s)
. the money was not used for underwriting purposes
This stinks of lawfare and treating lenders like garbage. I don't see why lender's accounts and money are frozen.
If this claim succeeds against lender's money , it obviously leaves the FS pot much healthier for creditors to feast on. Is that the strategy ?
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 1,200
|
Post by sqh on Jul 11, 2022 21:14:11 GMT
So according to the update, this company signed an agreement with FS to use the money for underwriting loans.
Under what scenario could any claim be made against other lenders money rather than a creditor charge against FS.
. all the loans underwritten using this money have gone bad
. the money was used for the wrong loan(s)
. the money was not used for underwriting purposes
This stinks of lawfare and treating lenders like garbage. I don't see why lender's accounts and money are frozen.
If this claim succeeds against lender's money , it obviously leaves the FS pot much healthier for creditors to feast on. Is that the strategy ?
It is very clear in the T&C's 4. Investing in Loans
4.1 If you decide to lend using our platform, then in order to ensure that your funds are readily available for disbursement to Borrowers, you must first pay the total amount you wish to lend into the FundingSecure Client Deposit Account by bank transfer or direct debit from your bank account. Please always quote your username as a reference on the bank transfer. All payments you make with your username included will be displayed as a credit in your FundingSecure Account. The FundingSecure Client Deposit Account is separated from the business of FundingSecure meaning your funds are kept secure until a Loan is activated (in accordance with clause 4.8).
The QT claimant already had a Client Deposit Account and knew the deposit process, so what reason did he have to do things differently ?
|
|
grumpsimus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 109
Likes: 91
|
Post by grumpsimus on Jul 11, 2022 21:46:38 GMT
It is impossible to comment fully on this without seeing details of the claim.
However, it is very clear that the lenders funds are seperate from those of Funding Secure and the administrators have always acknowledged this and worked on this basis. What I find difficult to understand is how a third party lender can have a claim under a Quistclose trust over other lenders funds, Yes they could have a claim over FS funds (not worth much!) but not over funds belonging to other Lenders, who never had any agreement with them, nor even aware of any agreement between FS and this BVI company.
I have no funds in my e-wallet, therefore won't be party to any litigation. However, I will be interested in how it develops.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,474
Likes: 10,638
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 11, 2022 21:47:58 GMT
So according to the update, this company signed an agreement with FS to use the money for underwriting loans.
Under what scenario could any claim be made against other lenders money rather than a creditor charge against FS.
. all the loans underwritten using this money have gone bad
. the money was used for the wrong loan(s)
. the money was not used for underwriting purposes
This stinks of lawfare and treating lenders like garbage. I don't see why lender's accounts and money are frozen.
If this claim succeeds against lender's money , it obviously leaves the FS pot much healthier for creditors to feast on. Is that the strategy ?
It is very clear in the T&C's 4. Investing in Loans
4.1 If you decide to lend using our platform, then in order to ensure that your funds are readily available for disbursement to Borrowers, you must first pay the total amount you wish to lend into the FundingSecure Client Deposit Account by bank transfer or direct debit from your bank account. Please always quote your username as a reference on the bank transfer. All payments you make with your username included will be displayed as a credit in your FundingSecure Account. The FundingSecure Client Deposit Account is separated from the business of FundingSecure meaning your funds are kept secure until a Loan is activated (in accordance with clause 4.8).
The QT claimant already had a Client Deposit Account and knew the deposit process, so what reason did he have to do things differently ? Were UW governed by the same t&C's? Seems to be a corporate lender so potentially B2B lending not P2P? Presumably will all be covered in the 'particulars of claim'
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 941
Likes: 1,623
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 11, 2022 23:03:07 GMT
Is this only relevant to money currently in the e-wallet (is that the same as client account?) What about funds which might be recovered in the future? My understanding is that it's not just any cash in your E-Wallet, it also includes any loans in your E-Wallet. It seems like a desperate attempt to undermine lenders ring-fenced funds. The Quistclose Claim is also in breach of T&C's 4.1. (Investing in Loans) If you reveal your Username and E-Wallet balance that could also be a breach of FS T&Cs. I was never appraised that the claim could also include loans which are assigned to me or other lenders. Can you please let me know where you heard this info from please. Feel free to IM me privately. Cheers.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,397
Likes: 4,809
|
Post by duck on Jul 12, 2022 1:32:44 GMT
<snip> the whole thing stinks to me.... .....
There is a way of finding out who is behind the BVI company but it can cost some serious money ..... If you search Companies House you can find an associated UK Co (dissolved voluntary) and one of the directors is almost certainly 'of interest' but you can never be 100% sure when you put your feet on the sands of the BVI. The administrators report for this company is 'intresting' with £2.6m being handed to the directors and costs to the administrators being negligable.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,829
Likes: 4,017
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 12, 2022 3:25:11 GMT
well spotted - yes it must be him - hopefully we will find out what the hell is going on here....
|
|
mullet
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 137
|
Post by mullet on Jul 12, 2022 5:53:33 GMT
If my cash balance (assuming that is my e-wallet) is showing as 0, but I have a stack of cash due to me sitting in a holding account following the Tower Block repayment, do I have an interest in these proceedings or not?
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 1,812
|
Post by r1200gs on Jul 12, 2022 7:09:52 GMT
If my cash balance (assuming that is my e-wallet) is showing as 0, but I have a stack of cash due to me sitting in a holding account following the Tower Block repayment, do I have an interest in these proceedings or not? I'm in precisely the same boat and looking for the same answer to that simple question.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamon89 on Jul 12, 2022 8:43:05 GMT
I don't really understand what is going on here, but I have a couple of observations.
J C Starr Holdings is claiming against Funding Secure Ltd. Funding Secure Ltd is controlled by administrators. How can the administrators then "take a neutral position" in any proceedings? They represent the defendant, surely? It doesn't make sense to me for them to say they are taking a neutral position in a claim against the company they are administering. Their job is to act in the best interest of creditors, which should mean they should settle or defend the claim as needed, no?
If the administrators are taking a neutral position, who is actually defending the claim, then?
Why is Starr trying to involve lenders? Is it possibly because they want to claim against the lenders? Are they saying "you guys have already been paid some money by FS which was rightfully ours, you should never have been paid it, so you need to pay it back"? That would be bad.
Or do they just need someone to take the other side of the claim? If the administrators are taking this strange "neutral position", is Starr just looking for someone with some money to fund the defence and they can then go after that defendant?
It is all very murky and weird indeed.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 1,812
|
Post by r1200gs on Jul 12, 2022 9:16:26 GMT
I don't really understand what is going on here, but I have a couple of observations. J C Starr Holdings is claiming against Funding Secure Ltd. Funding Secure Ltd is controlled by administrators. How can the administrators then "take a neutral position" in any proceedings? They represent the defendant, surely? It doesn't make sense to me for them to say they are taking a neutral position in a claim against the company they are administering. Their job is to act in the best interest of creditors, which should mean they should settle or defend the claim as needed, no?
If the administrators are taking a neutral position, who is actually defending the claim, then?Why is Starr trying to involve lenders? Is it possibly because they want to claim against the lenders? Are they saying "you guys have already been paid some money by FS which was rightfully ours, you should never have been paid it, so you need to pay it back"? That would be bad. Or do they just need someone to take the other side of the claim? If the administrators are taking this strange "neutral position", is Starr just looking for someone with some money to fund the defence and they can then go after that defendant? It is all very murky and weird indeed. Exactly. It seems that they have washed their hands of the matter and will just accept any decision from a court, it's up to lenders to defend themselves. And if there is not a robust defence, we're fecked. And like many I assume, I am still not even sure what money is at risk here.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jul 12, 2022 9:17:51 GMT
According to the administrator's report the e-wallet account (barclays no1 a/c) has 795k. Surely most normal lenders e-wallet account would be zero, who would leave repayments in there when there was plenty of time to withdraw before it was frozen. I suppose it could be just one or a few loans recovered just before the account was frozen.
No one seems to know if this claim is restricted to cash in the e-wallet account only. If it is then the Administrators did the right thing by freezing it and not transferring any money in from the other loan redemption money accounts.
|
|
wuzimu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 726
|
Post by wuzimu on Jul 12, 2022 9:32:08 GMT
AFAICS it's not that complicated.
Star apparently lent £500k to FS for specific purposes (the Trust) and BTW not across the FS platform. It appears a B2B loan.
FS did not use the funds for those purposes and Star claim is they are in breach of Trust.
This would usually be a Star v FS issue and not involve P2P lenders whose assets should be ringfenced in trust for them.
Unfortunately FS allegedly broke that Trust as well because lenders funds and FS funds were intermingled.
Hence apparently Star hopes to recover it's lost £500k from lenders assets. As FS clearly hasn't got £500k.
The Court will decide. It appears FS is defending the claim on a neutral basis. AIUI that means it is the proper Defendant but it is just laying out the facts for the Court. A spirited defence might not be expected. That might be expected to come from interested lenders.
Costs generally follow judgement.
I'm a lender so I hope Star fails. If Star's position is as the above and they are not party to FS wrong doing then I suppose can't blame them for trying to recover their money. But maybe this a painfully expensive process all seemingly springing from FS malfeasance
I have zero cash balance but some recovery held on account ( I assume). I would like to know if I am a potential party to this litigation, so i can get the papers.
If anyone finds out the answer to whether loads of us in that position qualify....please post it....
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,474
Likes: 10,638
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 12, 2022 9:39:05 GMT
I don't really understand what is going on here, but I have a couple of observations. J C Starr Holdings is claiming against Funding Secure Ltd. Funding Secure Ltd is controlled by administrators. How can the administrators then "take a neutral position" in any proceedings? They represent the defendant, surely? It doesn't make sense to me for them to say they are taking a neutral position in a claim against the company they are administering. Their job is to act in the best interest of creditors, which should mean they should settle or defend the claim as needed, no? If the administrators are taking a neutral position, who is actually defending the claim, then? Why is Starr trying to involve lenders? Is it possibly because they want to claim against the lenders? Are they saying "you guys have already been paid some money by FS which was rightfully ours, you should never have been paid it, so you need to pay it back"? That would be bad. Or do they just need someone to take the other side of the claim? If the administrators are taking this strange "neutral position", is Starr just looking for someone with some money to fund the defence and they can then go after that defendant? It is all very murky and weird indeed. I dont think the claim is against the company, it effectively relates to funds in the client account. AIUI the basic argument is that client provided money to be used to UW loans, circumstances were such that they believe this money should have been treated as a trust asset, and as such they are not an unsecured creditor of FS which is the current position they have be assigned. The administrators have to be neutral as they in effect work for both parties ... the claimant as either a creditor or trust beneficiary, and those lenders who will be effected by the case as trust beneficiaries. Its the same as the directions hearings ... the case is to seek an opinion from the Courts on the correct position. The administrators will present facts & arguments on why they think x, the claimant why they think y, anyone else affected can offer an opinion, x, y, or z. The Court will decide which opinion or bits of opinion is the correct interpretation of the law. They arent trying to involve lenders, lenders are involved by virtue to them having a claim on the pot of money ... both parties are lenders. Yes, I think to some extent that is the argument, that funds in the client account belonged to the claimant, those funds should never have left the client account (or at least should have been put back - its underwriting, presumably there was an assumption/agreement that the claimants funds would be repaid by p2p lenders replacing them in the specific investments), and therefore any funds in or paid into the client account up to the sum claimed belong to the claimant. No, they dont need someone to take the other side, but they do have to allow anyone effected the opportunity to argue an opinion. Yes, it is ... the admins seem to be being very opaque & convoluted in their language, probably due to restrictions of revealing info to non-parties. Im sure it will be clearer if anyone sees the particulars of claim ... though first they need to clear up who & who isnt affected ie I have zero funds in the client account but funds outstanding from recoveries, can I see the PoC?
|
|
