|
|
Post by shoreditch707 on Oct 2, 2024 12:56:26 GMT
I voted for Administration because the outcome was projected to be better, and AC could also claim on the personal guarantees. I see the vote went the way of "full and final" and I can understand why, but unless lenders are held to account for their bad behaviour then they can cynically offer a marginal settlement knowing it has a decent probability of being accepted. AC is a disgrace, as their lack of adequate monitoring created the situation and their outrageous "monitoring fees" for doing nothing is cynicism personified. As an earlier poster said the lender has now induced lenders to pay for his atrocious behaviour and arrogance and will no doubt go on to the finish the project for a fraction of the stated cost and benefit handsomely.
|
|
|
|
Post by frank121 on Oct 2, 2024 13:51:39 GMT
I voted for Administration because the outcome was projected to be better, and AC could also claim on the personal guarantees. I see the vote went the way of "full and final" and I can understand why, but unless lenders are held to account for their bad behaviour then they can cynically offer a marginal settlement knowing it has a decent probability of being accepted. AC is a disgrace, as their lack of adequate monitoring created the situation and their outrageous "monitoring fees" for doing nothing is cynicism personified. As an earlier poster said the lender has now induced lenders to pay for his atrocious behaviour and arrogance and will no doubt go on to the finish the project for a fraction of the stated cost and benefit handsomely. I agree with you that the Administration option looked to be more favourable as proposed but I don't have much faith in administrators and much less faith in AC to deliver. I also don't like the idea of the personal guarantees being dropped but we are not told if they are actually worth the paper they are written on it and the likelihood of them being enforced. (probably for deliberate reasons, as clearly AC want option A) For those reasons, I went for the full and final option and hope the haircut is as stated. I have no words to describe the quality of the so called monitoring nor the high fees demanded for it! But we can do bugger about it……who can make AC accountable? 
|
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Oct 2, 2024 15:25:12 GMT
Would the provision fund kick in for those investors who were on a QAA?
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477 
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Oct 8, 2024 8:02:53 GMT
Would the provision fund kick in for those investors who were on a QAA? I asked about this as this was the first loan that I was asked to vote on as a QAA holder. I phrased it as the QAA holders would always vote A as they are protected by the provision fund, but please confirm. I was told that the vote would be delayed by two days so they could clarify, but I never saw the clarification. I'm not impressed, but who is at this stage?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,344
Likes: 11,565
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 8, 2024 8:30:40 GMT
Would the provision fund kick in for those investors who were on a QAA? I asked about this as this was the first loan that I was asked to vote on as a QAA holder. I phrased it as the QAA holders would always vote A as they are protected by the provision fund, but please confirm. I was told that the vote would be delayed by two days so they could clarify, but I never saw the clarification. I'm not impressed, but who is at this stage? Its another mess that AC have got themselves into by making changes without working the process through & communicating. The relevant bit in the PF ‘rules’ is Separately, in a situation where lenders vote to accept a proposal from a borrower for debt forgiveness when there is a clear alternative that offers the prospect of full recovery of lenders' funds, the Provision Fund will not normally cover losses for those individual lenders who voted to accept that loss. Lenders that did not vote or that individually voted against taking a loss should expect to be covered by the Provision Fund. Quite clearly the vote on #1226 should have been explicit on how this applied, or seemingly didnt as there was no clear alternative offering the prospect of a full recovery. It would seem therefore that the PF is still on the hook for the loss, but then its discretionary nature means AC can basically do what it likes. Remember the PF is also supposed to cover missed interest payments to allow the achievement of the target rate but thats been dumped. Then there is the handling of the merger of the various AA & the impact on the PF coverage provided to the QAA investors which was better than the other accounts, not to mention that there is no mechanism for AC to actually merge the accounts, no notice clause. Thats before we even get to the ‘plundering’ to meet obligations outside the PFs remit on the windmills.
|
|
