|
|
Post by katimo on Feb 1, 2016 13:46:30 GMT
The latest annual return for the year to 11 Nov 2015 says that the company has 100,000 shares of £1 each - an increase of 99,999 shares on the year before, based on the previous year's annual return and accounts. However no SH01 evidencing an allotment of shares has been filed - they need to be filed within 28 days of the share allotment, which has already passed given the annual return is as at 11 Nov 2015.
Not a huge point but it's useful to know who the owners are and how they paid for the new shares. Maybe the increase in share capital has something to do with the change in structure late last year?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 2, 2016 23:00:05 GMT
The latest annual return for the year to 11 Nov 2015 says that the company has 100,000 shares of £1 each - an increase of 99,999 shares on the year before, based on the previous year's annual return and accounts. However no SH01 evidencing an allotment of shares has been filed - they need to be filed within 28 days of the share allotment, which has already passed given the annual return is as at 11 Nov 2015.
Not a huge point but it's useful to know who the owners are and how they paid for the new shares. Maybe the increase in share capital has something to do with the change in structure late last year?
I was waiting for someone with more accountancy knowledge than me to reply to your qustion, but a day has passed so I’ll give it a go and others can correct me where I get it wrong  ! So firstly according to the annual returns the shares where increased to 1,000,000 (not 100,000) and was an increase from 100 shares. As shown within the annual accounts these shares where split between the 2 directors; so no new owners or shareholders, just the company increasing its own shares. I would imagine that this has been done to give the directors more scope to sell some of their shares in the future (in the event that they wanted to); this would be something the accountant would recommend due to the businesses increased value. SH01 is not required when new shares are being allotted; you only need to fill out a SH01 when you are transferring new shares
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Feb 2, 2016 23:07:13 GMT
So firstly according to the annual returns the shares where increased to 1,000,000 (not 100,000) and was an increase from 100 shares. As shown within the annual accounts these shares where split between the 2 directors; so no new owners or shareholders, just the company increasing its own shares. I would imagine that this has been done to give the directors more scope to sell some of their shares in the future (in the event that they wanted to); this would be something the accountant would recommend due to the businesses increased value. Most probably. SS are hiring: e.g. credit advisers/controller, business development, etc. For a company this small and risky from an employee perspective, they may be considering offering some kind of equity incentive, I'd imagine. Or, of course, external investment (which I doubt - they don't really need it, and SS have stated they want to stay lean, which is often incompatible with external investment). Even if not, it's generally better practice to have lots of shares rather than 100....more flexibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by katimo on Feb 2, 2016 23:20:48 GMT
Where are you getting the 1,000,000 from? I'm looking at the annual return to 11 Nov 2015 (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08244913/filing-history) and it says 100,000 shares of £1 each.
You're right about it being an increase from 100 though, not 1. I was confused by the "total aggregate nominal value" in the previous year's return.
Also just for clarification an SH01 is required within 1 month (not 28 days like I said before) of the allotment of new shares, at least for private limited companies such as Lendy Ltd - I'm not sure what you mean by 'transfer of new shares'. See s555 of the Companies Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/555). A transfer of existing shares will generally only be reflected in the following year's annual return and doesn't require a separate filing.
Completely agree with the conclusion though that it is due to either someone external coming in the future or perhaps incentives to current/future employees.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 2, 2016 23:32:30 GMT
Where are you getting the 1,000,000 from? I'm looking at the annual return to 11 Nov 2015 (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08244913/filing-history) and it says 100,000 shares of £1 each. You're right about it being an increase from 100 though, not 1. I was confused by the "total aggregate nominal value" in the previous year's return. Also just for clarification an SH01 is required within 1 month (not 28 days like I said before) of the allotment of new shares, at least for private limited companies such as Lendy Ltd - I'm not sure what you mean by 'transfer of new shares'. See s555 of the Companies Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/555). A transfer of existing shares will generally only be reflected in the following year's annual return and doesn't require a separate filing. Completely agree with the conclusion though that it is due to either someone external coming in the future or perhaps incentives to current/future employees. Sorry; my mistake. There is indeed 100,000 shares indicated on the most recent annual returns, with 50,000 allocated to each director. I lost count of the zeros (a problem that occurs because my bank account has so few ) However your dates are wrong Annal returns from 11 Nov 2014 : 100 Shares @ £1/ each Annal returns from 22 Dec 2015 : 100,000 Shares @ £1/ each Somebody with more knowledge than me will have to clarify the requirement to submit SH01! However if it is required to be submitted; then they would have had until 22/01/2016 to submit the form. It's possible that they have submitted it, and that companies house simply haven’t updated their database yet, or yet to process the form.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 3, 2016 7:48:39 GMT
I lost count of the zeros (a problem that occurs because my bank account has so few ) Lucky boy. Your account has so few zeros because you only count using 9s. £99999999.99 That is why you always sell that last £0.01. 
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on May 28, 2016 19:14:50 GMT
Where are you getting the 1,000,000 from? I'm looking at the annual return to 11 Nov 2015 (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08244913/filing-history) and it says 100,000 shares of £1 each. You're right about it being an increase from 100 though, not 1. I was confused by the "total aggregate nominal value" in the previous year's return. Also just for clarification an SH01 is required within 1 month (not 28 days like I said before) of the allotment of new shares, at least for private limited companies such as Lendy Ltd - I'm not sure what you mean by 'transfer of new shares'. See s555 of the Companies Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/555). A transfer of existing shares will generally only be reflected in the following year's annual return and doesn't require a separate filing. Completely agree with the conclusion though that it is due to either someone external coming in the future or perhaps incentives to current/future employees. Sorry; my mistake. There is indeed 100,000 shares indicated on the most recent annual returns, with 50,000 allocated to each director. I lost count of the zeros (a problem that occurs because my bank account has so few ) However your dates are wrong Annal returns from 11 Nov 2014 : 100 Shares @ £1/ each Annal returns from 22 Dec 2015 : 100,000 Shares @ £1/ each Somebody with more knowledge than me will have to clarify the requirement to submit SH01! However if it is required to be submitted; then they would have had until 22/01/2016 to submit the form. It's possible that they have submitted it, and that companies house simply haven’t updated their database yet, or yet to process the form. Whilst everyone has been doing due dilligence on the loans there are a number of points that need addressing on the company and its subsidiaries. The first is a very trivial one, but shows a distinct lack of attention to detail. The share capital per the 2014 return, made up to 11 November shows 100 £1 shares allotted (i.e. an issued share capital of £100) the annual return states that the aggregate nominl value is £1. The shares were allotted 50 to each of the directors. Connected, the accounts to 31 December 2014 show issued share capital of £1. The 2015 Annual return was filed about two weeks late The SH01 should have been filed in respect of the 99,900 shares alloted sometime between 1 January 2015 and 11 November 2015. The Registered Office of the subsidiary that, according to the web site holds the provision fund, was changed to an address (which appears to be a set of seviced offices) that does not coinincide with Lendy Ltd. The subsidiary was subject to a notice in the London Gazette that the Registrar of Companies had given notice of intention to strike off. This was withdrawn the next day, Lendy Ltd or its bankers (who routinely monitor the London Gazette) would have notified the company who would notify the Registrar. Although the company had changed its Registered Office in the 15 months since incorporation the Registrar of Companies does issue reminders by both post and email (the latter if requested). The subsidiary is now 3 months overdue in filing its annual return. The last accounts show capital and reserves of £270k, there was a increase in capital of £100k and if the trading record to 2014 continued likely profits in the interim. However Lendy is now exposed to a defaulted loan of £1.7million. It is not clear what the recovery from the security will be. At 2014 the company did not own any fixed assets and appears to be continuing to trade from rented offices. If the recoveries are not substantial the directors will have to take account of their responsibility not to trade whilst insolvent. There is much discussion on this board about the procedures and due dilligence Lendy put in to their loans and others undertake their own. I trust both Lendy and their advisors pay more attention to the detail with these loans than they do to their own affairs.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on May 28, 2016 19:25:51 GMT
Sorry; my mistake. There is indeed 100,000 shares indicated on the most recent annual returns, with 50,000 allocated to each director. I lost count of the zeros (a problem that occurs because my bank account has so few ) However your dates are wrong Annal returns from 11 Nov 2014 : 100 Shares @ £1/ each Annal returns from 22 Dec 2015 : 100,000 Shares @ £1/ each Somebody with more knowledge than me will have to clarify the requirement to submit SH01! However if it is required to be submitted; then they would have had until 22/01/2016 to submit the form. It's possible that they have submitted it, and that companies house simply haven’t updated their database yet, or yet to process the form. Whilst everyone has been doing due dilligence on the loans there are a number of points that need addressing on the company and its subsidiaries. The first is a very trivial one, but shows a distinct lack of attention to detail. The share capital per the 2014 return, made up to 11 November shows 100 £1 shares allotted (i.e. an issued share capital of £100) the annual return states that the aggregate nominl value is £1. The shares were allotted 50 to each of the directors. Connected, the accounts to 31 December 2014 showissued share capital of £1. The 2015 Annual return was filed about two weeks late The SH01 should have been filed in respect of the 99,900 shares alloted sometime between 1 January 2015 and 11 November 2015. The Registered Office of the subsidiary that, according to the web site holds the provision fund, was changed to an address (which appears to be a set of seviced offices) that does not coinincide with Lendy Ltd. The subsidiary was subject to a notice in the London Gazette that the Registrar of Companies had given notice of intention to strike off. This was withdrawn the next day, Lendy Ltd or its bankers (who routinely monitor the London Gazette) would have notified the company who would notify the Registrar. Although the company had changed its Registered Office in the 15 months since incorporation the Registrar of Companies does issue reminders by both post and email (the latter if requested) The last accounts show capital and reserves of £270k, there was a increase in capital of £100k and if the trading record to 2014 continued likely profits in the interim. However Lendy is now exposed to a defaulted loan of £1.7million. It is not clear what the recovery from the security will be. At 2014 the company did not own any fixeed assets and appears to be continuing to trade from rented offices. If the recoveries are not substantial the directors will have to take account of their responsibility not to trade whilst insolvent. There is much discussion on this board about the procedures and due dilligence Lendy put in to their loans and others undertake their own. I trust both Lendy and their advisors pay more attention to the detail with these loans than they do to their own affairs. While all good point; the annual return being submitted late is very common in businesses of all sizes. All it involves is a submission of general information about your company, with most years not changing a thing (you just say, nothing has changed). It is important to complete, but it is one forms you set to one side and then panic when you remember that you haven't completed it . Fines are threatened but rarely given except in serious tardiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on May 28, 2016 19:59:03 GMT
While all good point; the annual return being submitted late is very common in businesses of all sizes. All it involves is a submission of general information about your company, with most years not changing a thing (you just say, nothing has changed). It is important to complete, but it is one forms you set to one side and then panic when you remember that you haven't completed it . Fines are threatened but rarely given except in serious tardiness. Maybe the Annual Returns being late is a small point, but one would hope that an organisation handling £100million plus of other peoples money could pay attention to these little details. However you mustn't let that obscure the main point, Lendy Ltd is potentially insolvent, borrowers under the old terms and conditions are not directly linked to lenders, so any payment to lenders from the Provision Fund could be a "preference" and even though the Directors might have best intentions to do so their advisors may not allow them to make such a payment. This really depends on a) just what the financial position of Lendy Ltd is(published data is now 17 months out of date) and b) just how big the loss is, the size of the Provsion Fund is only relevent if a) is bigger than b).
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on May 28, 2016 20:08:34 GMT
While all good point; the annual return being submitted late is very common in businesses of all sizes. All it involves is a submission of general information about your company, with most years not changing a thing (you just say, nothing has changed). It is important to complete, but it is one forms you set to one side and then panic when you remember that you haven't completed it . Fines are threatened but rarely given except in serious tardiness. Maybe the Annual Returns being late is a small point, but one would hope that an organisation handling £100million plus of other peoples money could pay attention to these little details. However you mustn't let that obscure the main point, Lendy Ltd is potentially insolvent, borrowers under the old terms and conditions are not directly linked to lenders, so any payment to lenders from the Provision Fund could be a "preference" and even though the Directors might have best intentions to do so their advisors may not allow them to make such a payment. This really depends on a) just what the financial position of Lendy Ltd is(published data is now 17 months out of date) and b) just how big the loss is, the size of the Provsion Fund is only relevent if a) is bigger than b). The provision fund is maintained by "Lendy Provision Reserve Ltd", that is where the money for the provision fund is held, NOT Lendy LtdSome issues there, however, as a quick search on the companies house shows that "Lendy Provision Reserve Ltd" annual returns has been overdue since 17 February 2016...
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 28, 2016 20:12:52 GMT
...a quick search on the companies house shows that "Lendy Provision Reserve Ltd" annual returns has been overdue since 17 February 2016... Should we be asking savingstream why Companies House is showing the LPRL annual return as being overdue?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on May 28, 2016 20:19:37 GMT
And it was the subject of the striking off notice.
However I still stand by my commenrts regarding the potential preference,.
The shares of the "subsidiary" were owned at incorporation by the Directors of Lendy Ltd so therefore subsidiary is a technichally incorrect word. The company is not trading (?) and therefore is likely to have capital and reserves of £100, unless of course the Directors have failed to file a notice of increase in share capital. Its assets will be cash and its liabilities a loan from Lendy Limited, if the common directors cause it to disburse money that will make the "parent" company insolvent they are potentially giving a "preference" so I go back to a) (capital and reserves of Lendy Ltd) having to be bigger than b) (eventual size of loss) in my earlier post.
Additionally apart from the legal position of the Comapnies and Insolvency Acts which may restrict payment the Provision Fund, as I understand it, is discretionary in any event.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on May 28, 2016 20:20:54 GMT
...a quick search on the companies house shows that "Lendy Provision Reserve Ltd" annual returns has been overdue since 17 February 2016... Should we be asking savingstream why Companies House is showing the LPRL annual return as being overdue? Yes, yes we should. Because the annual returns for "Lendy Provision Reserve Ltd" were late, "Lendy Provision Reserve Ltd" got a notice for compulsory strike-off... It was discontinued by Lendy, but still no Anual returns submitted 
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on May 28, 2016 20:24:07 GMT
It was discontinued by Lendy, but still no Anual Accounts submitted Annual accounts are not yet due the subsidiary has until 20 October 2016 to file them, it is the Annual Return that is overdue.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on May 28, 2016 20:25:00 GMT
It was discontinued by Lendy, but still no Anual Accounts submitted Annual accounts are not yet due the subsidiary has until 20 October 2016 to file them, it is the Annual Return that is overdue. My Mistake, that's what I meant and have edited my post A tad worrying some of this...
|
|
! 
