|
|
Post by ron on Jul 12, 2022 17:09:30 GMT
There is a note on the platform which is actually much clearer. It is current balance plus any pending withdrawals. On the basis of this it does not include any funds from loans redeemed but not paid to lenders. "This is the amount of your current available balance (plus any pending sums)." - in my understanding "pending sums" is the money that has been recovered, but not included in our balance. I'm probably wrong, but that is how it reads to me. In this context, I believe that by "pending sums" they mean the amounts "pending withdrawal", which is the line following the current available balance in the FS website. These are different from the sums recovered but not yet distributed to investors' e-wallets.
|
|
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 18:22:41 GMT
There is a note on the platform which is actually much clearer. It is current balance plus any pending withdrawals. On the basis of this it does not include any funds from loans redeemed but not paid to lenders. "This is the amount of your current available balance (plus any pending sums)." - in my understanding "pending sums" is the money that has been recovered, but not included in our balance. I'm probably wrong, but that is how it reads to me. Read the note in the platform, it seems pretty clear what pending means.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 12, 2022 19:20:04 GMT
"This is the amount of your current available balance (plus any pending sums)." - in my understanding "pending sums" is the money that has been recovered, but not included in our balance. I'm probably wrong, but that is how it reads to me. Read the note in the platform, it seems pretty clear what pending means. Just did. Different from the e-mail. It would've been better if they used word "withdrawals" in the e-mail too. I doubt many investors login very often...
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 707
Likes: 476
|
Post by jo on Jul 13, 2022 14:24:03 GMT
I'm still intrigued by what this means - anyone?:
....in order to fully understand the nature and application of the Claim and whether or not this is limited to any particular sum
|
|
grumpsimus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 109
Likes: 91
|
Post by grumpsimus on Jul 13, 2022 14:29:27 GMT
I think the administrators could have saved everyone a great deal of confusion by using the information they already have by running a search on the Lenders database, identifying those with current available and pending balances and notifying them directly about the claim. It is then up to those eligble Lenders if they wish to join the legal action.
Obviously this would be far too difficuly for C&G!
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jul 13, 2022 15:06:57 GMT
Doesn't seem to have a lot going for it.
Have many successful cases have there been since 1970 ?
It would seem to cause disproportionate random losses to different lenders who had no knowledge of the underwriting agreement for those particular bad loans.
Legally it is two bites at the cherry and the timing could cause issues i.e. how much money was in the e-wallet prior to the claim being made and what did the claimant know about the balance of the account. Did they know the administrators were going to freeze the account ?
Or is it a case of the money not being used to underwrite any loans and it was spirited away somewhere ? How you can make a reparation claim against lenders' money is the confusing part for me so the question is does the claim have any merit whatsoever and is it simply a tactic.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,829
Likes: 4,017
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 13, 2022 19:56:26 GMT
I contacted Boodle Hatfield LLP yesterday - no reply of course
As I said this to me has scam written all over 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 13, 2022 22:00:17 GMT
I contacted Boodle Hatfield LLP yesterday - no reply of course As I said this to me has scam written all over it.... Contacted them about what ... getting the PoC? As per the update that wont be provided until after 25 July. They may well take a similar approach to other enquiries ... waiting until a certain date so they can send a collated response to FAQ or they my not respond at all. They arent lenders lawyers and arent going incur costs unnecessarily.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,829
Likes: 4,017
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 14, 2022 1:57:56 GMT
not how I read it
Username and the current balance within their e-wallet account by 25 July 2022. Boodle Hatfield LLP, the solicitors for JC Starr Holdings Ltd, will then provide such Investors with draft Particulars of Claim as soon as possible and no later than 8 August 2022, whereupon the Investors will be able to obtain legal advice and then decide whether or not they wish to participate in proceedings. Those Investors who do wish to participate in proceedings must confirm their intention to do so by 19 September 2022
I really find all this very poorly described and don't see why (as others have said) why C&G can't do this for us and what happens if there is still funds in the e-wallet after 8th August - whatever my confidence in getting any this money back is 0%
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 941
Likes: 1,623
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 14, 2022 6:31:18 GMT
I am aware people are contacting BH with their name only and refusing to give their username and amounts. I am one such person! Why should they demand such info, and we are expected to freely hand it over! It might well be a ploy to see who has what to save the claimant the expense of going to court to obtain the info via HC order.
|
|
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 14, 2022 7:00:38 GMT
not how I read it Username and the current balance within their e-wallet account by 25 July 2022. Boodle Hatfield LLP, the solicitors for JC Starr Holdings Ltd, will then provide such Investors with draft Particulars of Claim as soon as possible and no later than 8 August 2022, whereupon the Investors will be able to obtain legal advice and then decide whether or not they wish to participate in proceedings. Those Investors who do wish to participate in proceedings must confirm their intention to do so by 19 September 2022 I really find all this very poorly described and don't see why (as others have said) why C&G can't do this for us and what happens if there is still funds in the e-wallet after 8th August - whatever my confidence in getting any this money back is 0% Yes, you have to contact them by 25 July, but they will send it out between 25 July - 8 Aug is how I read it but OK maybe ambiguous. Having become used to dealing with lawyers/courts I probably see everything through that prism and that they work to a certain structure ... you do x by a, I do y by b, court does z by c ... Guess we'll see
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 5,974
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 14, 2022 8:49:17 GMT
It might well be a ploy to see who has what to save the claimant the expense of going to court to obtain the info via HC order. Indeed.
(I have no legal training:) I simply cannot see how this action can proceed as is.
If the claim is against FS then the court will have to consider the rights of those affected by any subsequent order. This will mean, similar to other platforms in admin, a directions hearing will be held to establish who should be able to make submissions.
I think it's fairly settled that anyone affected by an order, that did not have an ability to make submissions on it, can apply to have the order set aside and the underlying issue heard de novo. That's why platforms in admin tell the court that everyone affected has been told about the hearing and the underlying issues. This includes access to witness statements etc. In this case there's only a draft PoC.
If the claim is against individual lenders then the claimant will have to establish a direct flow of money from them to the lender. I cannot see how that could be established.
Where did the client account hole come from?
There is no doubt there was a significant hole in the client account. That was caused by the actions of former director Richard Luxmore.
FundingSecure have said in court documents: “Richard Luxmore procured certain payments from the Claimant’s client account where the purported loan referred to in the Payment Request prepared by RL and/or instruction he gave did not exist and there was no documentary record in respect of the same.” “Accordingly, any and/or each such Payment Requests was falsified so as to facilitate wrongful payment.”
These have been expressly admitted by Richard Luxmore, who said: "RL considered that he was acting in good faith in exercising judgments which led to making arrangements, both on-platform and off-platform, for the lending which is the subject of the Claimant's claims and details of which are particularised in Schedule to this Defence. RL's judgments were in accordance with the established practices of the Former Claimant, established by both NH and RL and as set out in this Defence and which were intended to have the effect of promoting the success of the company."
In a further paragraph Mr Luxmore implicates Nigel Hackett, who has not had an opportunity to reply to these allegations and may well disagree:
FundingSecure's "established practice was that it did advance some loans to borrowers using client account funds prior to that borrowing being matched to lenders. This established practice was also routinely practised by NH"
Where did the money go? The money, some £2.5m of client account money, is said to have been sent to a man known as 'MC'. Whilst that 'lending' was unsupported by loan contracts or security, the debt has been admitted by 'MC'
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,829
Likes: 4,017
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 14, 2022 9:25:23 GMT
very well said Mousey - just what the hell has happened here - we were told we lent them money against secured assets but apparently they did not exist
well to me ,if true, that is fraud pure and simple .QED
I think we all know who MC may be!!!
This farce gets even worse which I never thought was possible!
|
|
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 14, 2022 11:15:53 GMT
It might well be a ploy to see who has what to save the claimant the expense of going to court to obtain the info via HC order. Indeed.
(I have no legal training:) I simply cannot see how this action can proceed as is.
If the claim is against FS then the court will have to consider the rights of those effected by any subsequent order. This will mean, similar to other platforms in admin, a directions hearing will be held to establish who should be able to make submissions.
I think it's fairly settled that anyone affected by an order, that did not have an ability to make submissions on it, can apply to have the order set aside and the underlying issue heard de novo. That's why platforms in admin tell the court that everyone affected has been told about the hearing and the underlying issues. This includes access to witness statements etc. In this case there's only a draft PoC.
If the claim is against individual lenders then the claimant will have to establish a direct flow of money from them to the lender. I cannot see how that could be established.
Where did the client account hole come from?
There is no doubt there was a significant hole in the client account. That was caused by the actions of former director Richard Luxmore.
FundingSecure have said in court documents: “Richard Luxmore procured certain payments from the Claimant’s client account where the purported loan referred to in the Payment Request prepared by RL and/or instruction he gave did not exist and there was no documentary record in respect of the same.” “Accordingly, any and/or each such Payment Requests was falsified so as to facilitate wrongful payment.”
These have been expressly admitted by Richard Luxmore, who said: "RL considered that he was acting in good faith in exercising judgments which led to making arrangements, both on-platform and off-platform, for the lending which is the subject of the Claimant's claims and details of which are particularised in Schedule to this Defence. RL's judgments were in accordance with the established practices of the Former Claimant, established by both NH and RL and as set out in this Defence and which were intended to have the effect of promoting the success of the company."
In a further paragraph Mr Luxmore implicates Nigel Hackett, who has not had an opportunity to reply to these allegations and may well disagree:
FundingSecure's "established practice was that it did advance some loans to borrowers using client account funds prior to that borrowing being matched to lenders. This established practice was also routinely practised by NH"
Where did the money go? The money, some £2.5m of client account money, is said to have been sent to a man known as 'MC'. Whilst that 'lending' was unsupported by loan contracts or security, the debt has been admitted by 'MC'
I'm not sure it is actually a claim against either FS or lenders. It's a claim that funds should have been treated as trust assets & client funds. It came up in the Collateral hearing ... and seemed to be where client funds could be clearly identified in a client account, eg deposited & no investment made, subject to a pooling event like insolvency then a QT could be argued. As such it would not be subject to the effects of the pooling event. ie the claimant gets his cash back, everyone else takes a pro-rata share of a shortfall. At a guess, the argument is the money was provided for a specific purpose, that purpose was never undertaken, therefore the money should still be in client account and should be returned. The truth will only be clear from the PoC ... assuming we can understand it
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 5,974
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 14, 2022 11:35:20 GMT
I'm not sure it is actually a claim against either FS or lenders. It's a claim that funds should have been treated as trust assets & client funds. It came up in the Collateral hearing ... and seemed to be where client funds could be clearly identified in a client account, eg deposited & no investment made, subject to a pooling event like insolvency then a QT could be argued. As such it would not be subject to the effects of the pooling event. ie the claimant gets his cash back, everyone else takes a pro-rata share of a shortfall. At a guess, the argument is the money was provided for a specific purpose, that purpose was never undertaken, therefore the money should still be in client account and should be returned. The truth will only be clear from the PoC ... assuming we can understand it Well there will have to be a respondent to the application. Whether that's FS or the lenders as defendant in a part 7 claim or FS resulting from an app under the IA.
(could be completely wrong - If there's a PoC then I assume a part 7 or part 8 claim, as opposed to an application notice for IA application?  ?)
It did get mooted in the Col app. But that was after all the investors had been given the opportunity to access documents, inc witness statements, and have the opportunity to make submissions. Even then they can apply to set aside the order (although a high bar given all the notice).
I just don't see how JCS would face the cost risk of having extensive court proceedings set aside on the basis that not everyone affected was given notice.
This 'you'll have to apply for the dPoC' isn't proactive enough I don't think. I can't see a court allowing JCS access to funds held by investor #9815 if #9815 hasn't been given explicit opportunities to make representations.
I wonder if this is a: "Please tell us how much money you have available on the platform and we'll pick the 10 most profitable defendants to sue and hope for a settlement". I can't see how JCS can establish a direct link between the purported £500k trust and actual investors.
|
|
?)