r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,296 
Likes: 1,812
|
Post by r1200gs on Jul 14, 2022 12:29:02 GMT
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.
As soon as I saw this demand to send my user name and the amount on my account to the claimants solicitors I thought to myself, you have to be joking! Why would I hand ammo to my enemy?! I would not dare to advise anyone else, but no way are they getting that information from me unless it's dragged out of me. I'm also baffled as to how this action could go ahead against hundreds of people who have likely not even been informed about it. I have two accounts, I found the emails about this in the spam on one account and there is precisely nothing in the other email box. Surely to goodness we should be receiving letters about this.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 2,572
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 14, 2022 14:46:52 GMT
I've half a mind to tell them I have £3M and then much later "sorry, only joking..."
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,829
Likes: 4,017
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 14, 2022 16:02:14 GMT
Mousey - you are a cynic but I like you!
This rings as true to me as a 9 bob note....
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 2,519
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 14, 2022 16:30:44 GMT
I thought the quistclose trust was a 'follow the money', ie he lent money for a purpose, the money wasn't used for that purpose so he can get it back from whoever has it, which can only be FS (the Company, Directors, etc) or borrowers. Lenders can't have it particularly since they are already out of pocket. It would be a pretty devious route to say it went to borrowers but some of it was paid back to lenders and they should pay that back, lenders only lent their own money not the money 'belonging to' the person filing the Quistclose trust claim.
|
|
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 18:30:59 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.
It is somewhat odd. At some point, it will have to go to a Court to determine how service will be carried out on affected parties is to be achieved and probably determine who those parties actually are. That is going to have to involve FS (in admin) in someway as only they have the information. Cant see anyway a fishing expedition will assist ... there is no relationship between the claimant & lenders so seemingly no grounds to sue.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 14, 2022 19:41:03 GMT
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.
As soon as I saw this demand to send my user name and the amount on my account to the claimants solicitors I thought to myself, you have to be joking! Why would I hand ammo to my enemy?! I would not dare to advise anyone else, but no way are they getting that information from me unless it's dragged out of me. I don't feel like I should be communicating with claimant's solicitors, never mind disclosing my details to third parties. I don't want to be dealing with anyone, except CG, on FS matter. As far as I'm concerned, it's administrators' job (very well paid job) to wind down the loan book, not mine.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 1,812
|
Post by r1200gs on Jul 15, 2022 10:02:31 GMT
I've sent an email requesting the details of the claim (from another email account not linked with FS) while giving no personal details and certainly not my account balance, these people are not our friends and anything that can be used against us likely will be used against us.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 259
Likes: 297
|
Post by mah on Jul 15, 2022 16:55:28 GMT
FS has clarified via email that it doesn't apply to the Future Funds that could potentially be recovered or have already been but sitting on a different Trust account other than the E-Wallet. So, it only applies to Cash Balance (including Pending Withdrawals).
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 5,974
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 26, 2022 10:53:26 GMT
Here's an interesting picture. Nigel Hackett was both a director of FS and Pulsant Limited. Spencer Tarring was a director of both Pulsant Limited and JC Starr Developments Limited. Nigel Hackett and Spencer Tarring resigned as directors of Pulsant on the same day. Spencer Tarring was a director of JC Starr Developments Ltd (a UK based company). JC Starr Holdings Ltd, a BVI company, and one with a very similar name to JC Starr Developments Ltd, is the company connected with the Quistclose Trust issue. One might speculate, with no insinuation of wrong doing whatsoever, that Mr Hackett contacted his buddy Spencer to 'provide' the 500k to FS.  |
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 5,974
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 26, 2022 12:31:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scotty on Jul 26, 2022 12:36:53 GMT
One might speculate, with no insinuation of wrong doing whatsoever, that Mr Hackett contacted his buddy Spencer to 'provide' the 500k to FS.
It's not like the guy is short of money, an extremely wealthy DJ and Crypto investor, earlier this month he was asking his Facebook followers if he should buy back an NFT that he previously sold for $500k at $90k.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 5,974
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 26, 2022 14:35:09 GMT
One might speculate, with no insinuation of wrong doing whatsoever, that Mr Hackett contacted his buddy Spencer to 'provide' the 500k to FS.
It's not like the guy is short of money, an extremely wealthy DJ and Crypto investor, earlier this month he was asking his Facebook followers if he should buy back an NFT that he previously sold for $500k at $90k.
How certain are you that they are the same person?Yep same person.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 1,812
|
Post by r1200gs on Jul 26, 2022 15:45:44 GMT
So, somebody please feel to tell me I have this wrong - somebody appointed to look after our interests is actually a mole stabbing us in the back? Yes/no?
|
|
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 26, 2022 15:51:07 GMT
So, somebody please feel to tell me I have this wrong - somebody appointed to look after our interests is actually a mole stabbing us in the back? Yes/no? Er yes! But he did wait until his main loan (65% of his total investment) repaid before deciding to stab us.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 1,812
|
Post by r1200gs on Jul 26, 2022 16:11:15 GMT
So, somebody please feel to tell me I have this wrong - somebody appointed to look after our interests is actually a mole stabbing us in the back? Yes/no? Er yes! But he did wait until his main loan (65% of his total investment) repaid before deciding to stab us. I have avoided this question for fear of offending people genuinely working hard on our behalf (here and on other failed platforms) and to whom I am grateful, but the question was, given the secrecy involved - how do we know that those people are truly looking after our best interests and are not looking after their own interests and to hell with anyone else? I didn't want to ask the question for fear of look like a paranoid fool. Not so paranoid after all. These platforms failed because of dishonesty and greed, it's not gone away and the secrecy is enabling it to continue. I am damned sure this is the tip of an iceberg and nobody can be trusted. The bloody wild west while the FCA turn a blind eye.
|
|
?)
