|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 29, 2013 9:20:05 GMT
this went pop at the end of august. 50% immediate recoveries through sale of assets out of administration.
The loan had a cross guarantee from company, which on the old forum many stated they saw as likely to lead to recovery of substantial chunk of the remaining outstanding.
However, all has been quiet since that initial recovery, bar a comment added very recently ref. report from the admin process expecting to be received in March.
Anyone any insight as to why the cross guarantee appears to not be being chased ? Is the fact that the loan was defaulted and the company went into admin, mean that there is no legal basis for chasing the cross guarantor until the administration is finalised and the final position known ? [Whereas if the loan was not defaulted, presumably the cross guarantee could be used to "encourage" the cross guarantor to either continue payments or settle, in the event of the loan being 'distressed'].
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 29, 2013 11:28:24 GMT
This has been discussed briefly on another thread. Presumably it was defaulted to allow the settlement with creditors going into administration, and this period to the end of March is to see if the administrator can return it to viability or sell it off, and if not it will go into liquidation. I imagine that FC have given a March date to avoid having to deal with loads of enquires about progress. Whatever happens the 50% is still due to be recovered by FCRL, but presumably we cannot yet know what will come from the borrower company and what balance will remain to be recovered from the guarantor (parent) company. What is for sure is that the guarantor company if responsible for any balance due to us and FCRL is responsible to the lenders (not to FC) in recovering the money. The guarantor company is still trading and I do not see any acceptable outcome in which the monies are not recovered and the guarantor company is left trading. A company guarantee should be much easier to chase than those elusive personal guarantees which are not tied to personal assets.
As a creditor, I am comforted that the performance on this one is important to FC's overall default/recovery statistics and will affect a very large number of fairly recent lenders - recovery will be good FC news for a very large number of its lenders. I do not think that FCRL will try to forget this one, and am still optimistic of getting my few hundred back.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,033 
Likes: 4,432
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 29, 2013 13:10:18 GMT
I'm only in for £60, but it would be nice to get the other £30 back
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 29, 2013 13:18:43 GMT
"Presumably it was defaulted to allow the settlement with creditors going into administration," Yes.
But it was sold off: that happened on the same day as administration happened. So the question would be any residual assets not sold off and what debts were in the company. What however could be a risk etc. would be e.g. if hte guarantor company had loans outstanding from the directors, and the directors seeing the writing on the wall withdrew their loans leaving naff all assets in the company. Nor do I There is where are outlooks probably diverge.... :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 29, 2013 13:19:22 GMT
I'm only in for £60, but it would be nice to get the other £30 back I wish I could say the same.....
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Dec 29, 2013 14:31:14 GMT
I'm only in for £60, but it would be nice to get the other £30 back I wish I could say the same..... And me.....
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 29, 2013 16:03:45 GMT
</I> But it was sold off: that happened on the same day as administration happened. So the question would be any residual assets not sold off and what debts were in the company. </DIV></DIV>The business was not sold off, as far as I know, just some of the £6m engineering assets were sold over which we had a charge, and which resulted in the 50% recovery. I understand the business and the jobs were saved and the administrator is still in charge. Nothing has been said about the guarantor company and its £3m of property assets over which we have a charge. This must still be in play if the borrower cannot pay in full. I think that is right and there is every cause for optimism if we are patient. Nil desparandum.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 29, 2013 16:24:13 GMT
u may wish to review the quoting on that post..... or not :-)
Clearly the company was not sold as a going concern, , as it was put into administration. The sale and the admin occurred within 24 hours, the staff were as far as I could make out transferred into the acquiring company lock and stock and barrel, along with the primary (no idea if there was a secondary) site(s) and engineering/manufacturing capabilities. From what I could tell from the press releases, it came across as being virtually identical to a full sale and acquisition as a going concern: minus of course the debts of the company, and possibly minus the debtors book (whisper it quietly: akin to a pre-pack administration is what came to mind).
Apart from the debtors book which I assume did not go across (but might have) I'm very doubtful that much was left in terms of assets within the company itself.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 29, 2013 22:25:43 GMT
Thanks BB, I do need to review that post. I had reviewed the FC provided notes and email which speaks of certain assets being sold and purchased and jobs saved, but it does not say that the trade (and jobs) had been sold to Another Company, which company announced on 30th Aug as you say. FC have been economical with information.
In that case I do not understand why it takes until March to ontain an administrator's report and to progress the claim on the guarantor company. IF FC(RL) are kicking this into the long grass in the hope of deferring bad news then there will be some very cross lenders.
|
|
