iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on May 27, 2024 10:43:11 GMT
As I said this strikes me as a nasty blocking tactic - you never know. Whether FS were complicit I have no idea Would you be so kind as to clarify a few things please? What is being blocked, by whom and to what ends? And, specifically, what is 'nasty' about it. To me this simply seems like an individual trying to protect their legitimate (if somewhat foolishly based) business interests, but you seem to have a different take on it.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,915
Likes: 4,141
|
Post by adrian77 on May 27, 2024 12:21:35 GMT
Not sure if this is a serious question
Damn right I take a different approach - this is what worries me
there is clearly an issue with FS and something is going on ref the Clarkson claims etc and the excellent Mousey article and the following bothers me a tad form Mousey
I am very busy but to be brief why the hell can't we see this £0.5m in the books - maybe you run a bigger business than I do but to me £0.5m is a lot of money my accounts show every penny I invest/earn etc Who the hell in their right mind would simply throw £0.5m at a company without a charge and legal agreement - this bloke claims to be a mega-entrepreneur, bitcoin expert, investment trainer etc so not exactly foreign to business
Again why a company in the BVI ?
Believe me (I speak from experience) if you tangle with the big boys in building etc they will try and break you using totally unwarranted legal action etc if you have the nerve not to accept delayed payment etc. Of course Mr T maybe as honest and straight as a Spring morning but somehow I doubt it...
I have spent too much time trying to work out what is going on here but my instinct it is tied in with the Manchester land deal and various parties have tried to shaft FS users (many have succeeded) and maybe the shafters have themselves been shafted - whatever to me this whole thing stinks and I have seen this sort of nonsense before.
Clearly this bloke (maybe as an agent) invested this money and he did it for personal gain and not a charitable desire to get FS out of a hole: don't ask me what I think of this bloke!
Mr M is clearly no fool so will wait to see what he unearths - I can hardly wait...
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,181
Likes: 11,372
|
Post by ilmoro on May 27, 2024 13:32:41 GMT
Not sure if this is a serious question Damn right I take a different approach - this is what worries me there is clearly an issue with FS and something is going on ref the Clarkson claims etc and the excellent Mousey article and the following bothers me a tad form Mousey I am very busy but to be brief why the hell can't we see this £0.5m in the books - maybe you run a bigger business than I do but to me £0.5m is a lot of money my accounts show every penny I invest/earn etc Who the hell in their right mind would simply throw £0.5m at a company without a charge and legal agreement - this bloke claims to be a mega-entrepreneur, bitcoin expert, investment trainer etc so not exactly foreign to business Again why a company in the BVI ? Believe me (I speak from experience) if you tangle with the big boys in building etc they will try and break you using totally unwarranted legal action etc if you have the nerve not to accept delayed payment etc. Of course Mr T maybe as honest and straight as a Spring morning but somehow I doubt it... I have spent too much time trying to work out what is going on here but my instinct it is tied in with the Manchester land deal and various parties have tried to shaft FS users (many have succeeded) and maybe the shafters have themselves been shafted - whatever to me this whole thing stinks and I have seen this sort of nonsense before. Clearly this bloke (maybe as an agent) invested this money and he did it for personal gain and not a charitable desire to get FS out of a hole: don't ask me what I think of this bloke! Mr M is clearly no fool so will wait to see what he unearths - I can hardly wait... Youve confused me - the Clarkson claim is totally different and unrelated to the QT claim or are you suggesting the QT money was used for this loan? Of course, there was something going on with FS ... not least the failure to properly follow client money rules as has been stated by the admins. What £500k - the QT money? Why would it be on the books, it wasnt FS money, it was client money, paid into the client account (that seems to be an accepted fact by Claimant (POC) and Defendant (Defence)) It is in the SOA as unsecured creditor so is on the books from that point. They didnt throw £500k without an agreement or security - they had they claim/believed - a contract (the underwriting agreement) and funds to be held in the client account. The agreement defined exactly how the funds were to be used (hence the Quistclose would be created) and the claimant was to be party to any loan agreements/security relevant to the loans the money was used to underwrite (same as us) I cant see they are anymore stupid than any other lender relying on FS when lending through the platfrom - ie we are all schmucks here I think making any statement about the claimant's propriety is dangerous without any evidence to the contrary ... similar with unsupported conspiracy/collusion theories. Of course he did it for personal gain, same as the rest of us. Why would it be charitable or to get FS out of a hole? Any evidence that he knew FS were in a hole or just speculation? Remember it was apparently a new incarnation of a previous facility. Mr M will only be unearthing material relevant to the case ... the Court has been clear that it isnt a wider consideration of FS or the administration.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,915
Likes: 4,141
|
Post by adrian77 on May 28, 2024 8:02:49 GMT
what I am clearly suggesting is that I don't believe we have been given a full explanation for this £0.5m and that it is a POSSIBILTY that this loan is tied in with the Manchester land deal - one of the directors has already admitted there were snagettes with the book-keeping etc I couldn't see this sum in the SOA (which is what I was referring to) - please show me where it is as I have clearly missed it.
As I said I refuse to believe this was simple naivety by an investor -maybe I am wrong. True ,as a twit, I stand to lose a maximum of about £250 which I can stand unlike £0.5m which I sure can't!
However all this Quistclose stuff /legal action etc is a fascinating learning experience for me
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,583
Likes: 6,660
|
Post by Mousey on May 28, 2024 9:13:14 GMT
I couldn't see this sum in the SOA (which is what I was referring to) - please show me where it is as I have clearly missed it. It's shown on page 7 of the SOA
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,915
Likes: 4,141
|
Post by adrian77 on May 28, 2024 9:51:20 GMT
Mousey Thanks a lot - sorry if I appear thick but it is lumped under deposits from investors? Personally if it were my books this sum would be clearly defined...no idea what the accounting regulations are here
Keep up the good work - can't wait for your next report on this matter!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,181
Likes: 11,372
|
Post by ilmoro on May 28, 2024 10:23:29 GMT
Mousey Thanks a lot - sorry if I appear thick but it is lumped under deposits from investors? Personally if it were my books this sum would be clearly defined...no idea what the accounting regulations are here Keep up the good work - can't wait for your next report on this matter! It is clearly defined in the SOA ... remember there are no accounts for the relevant period as FS didnt file them ... the SOA is the equivalent Unsecured non-preferential creditors - JC Starr Holdings Deposits from investors arent in the SOA as they are not company assets. It is also shown in every set of administration accounts under unsecured creditors, distinct from investors which appear under secured (purely in the context of distributions not claims) - (format was changed in 2023 so not as clearly defined since)
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on May 28, 2024 10:49:17 GMT
Not sure if this is a serious question Absolutely they were serious questions; why wouldn't they be? As you somehow managed not to quote them here they are again: What is being blocked, by whom and to what ends? And, specifically, what is 'nasty' about it? As per the bit you did quote, I don't see how you can regard this as anything other than an individual (or, I guess, technically a legal entity) trying to protect their business interests. Other than suggesting some kind of convoluted Machiavellian plot to confound the administration process, you've not answered the questions. But I appreciate you are busy, so we'll leave it there ... Why not? It's not illegal. There are tax advantages to off-shoring funds for those that can afford it and are prepared to jump through the necessary hoops as well as tolerate the associated risks. God knows that this country is going to hell in a handcart in double quick time which is why so many (including a good number here) have set up interests overseas; even if on closer shores than the BVIs.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 344
Likes: 376
|
Post by mah on Jun 8, 2024 11:28:53 GMT
It has now been confirmed by all sources that the QuistClose Defence Fees are being paid from monies held for all investors and not the monies held in relation to the Quistclose Trust. So, for those Lenders who have Zero or small Amounts Frozen under the QuistClose it makes No Sense to pay for the Legal Fees of the Defence from the Non-QuistClose Funds. In doing so, the Lenders that have zero or insignificant exposure to the QT Frozen Funds are subsidising those who have significant amounts exposed to the QT Claim, which, in my opinion, is Unfair and Wrong. So, anyone who is in this situation of losing significant amount of Money from their Non-QT Loans for defending the small (overall £500K) QT Claim should write both to the Solicitors of the Defence as well to the Court Registering their Objection. I will be writing soon. Please PM me if you want to see what I write.
This is My Opinion and I acknowledge that those who have substantial sums tied up in the QT Loans might have a different opinion as per their personal interests.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,915
Likes: 4,141
|
Post by adrian77 on Jun 12, 2024 8:59:06 GMT
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 344
Likes: 376
|
Post by mah on Jun 16, 2024 10:54:01 GMT
Exactly - a lose - lose. If JC Starr loses, there is no case. But PM's Fees are not guaranteed to be recoverable from him (Judge might not rule, JCS going bankrupt, etc.). So uninvested Lenders pay up. If JC Starr wins, they get the money (we have no say) and can also claim their fees. Lenders with No or Insignificant Amounts tied down to QT Claim lose the money + pay both parties Fees.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 344
Likes: 376
|
Post by mah on Jun 16, 2024 13:58:12 GMT
The honourable thing to do is have a Vote and do a Fundraiser for the Legal Fees for those who are interested - rather than forcing everyone to pay.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,181
Likes: 11,372
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 16, 2024 15:41:08 GMT
The honourable thing to do is have a Vote and do a Fundraiser for the Legal Fees for those who are interested - rather than forcing everyone to pay. Nothing stopping you ... however unless running on no win no fee, lawyers need certainty of funding. Clearly the judge feels that lender claimants need to be represented so funding needs to be secure and the only sources of that is the trust or general estates. The general estate should be the source but has no money so it has to be from the trust assets, especially as lenders are the only likely beneficiaries. NB The representative respondent, and quite likely claimant as a lender, will be paying a share.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 344
Likes: 376
|
Post by mah on Jun 23, 2024 9:30:22 GMT
NB The representative respondent, and quite likely claimant as a lender, will be paying a share. Yes, but only a small fraction. Obviously, not everyone is exposed to the QT Loans equally - some have very large exposures, some NIL. So, the gains/cost is not uniform and those with Zero exposure will just have costs without any gains.
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 465
|
Post by aj on Jun 24, 2024 8:46:31 GMT
All funds withheld by the administrators are exposed to the quistclose claim.
The initial lump sum of frozen money was just everything in the client account at the time the claim was made, not a set of loans the administrators determined to be at risk from the claim.
Fighting the appointment of the lawyers court appointed to represent you would involve paying your own lawyers to challenge said court appointment; hassling the court appointed lawyers will just rack up more extortionate legal fees for all lenders.
|
|