yangmills
Member of DD Central
Posts: 83
Likes: 494
|
Post by yangmills on Feb 11, 2018 10:29:53 GMT
There are two distinct risks. IF Lendy Ltd are the principal then they are not covered by the FSCS so there is a risk of Lending to them, the same as lending to any company The other is the loan itself which may default, if the terms and conditions do absolve Lendy from liability then the risk is the same as any other loan. All Financial Services companies are obliged to issue general risk warnings (including those covered by the FSCS) but as to what they actually mean one would have to look in detail at the terms and conditions and even then, as we have seen with all "old" Lendy loans, it may still be obscure and subject to diferent interpretation. On your above point. Why would people think that Lendy is not the principal on this loan? We viewed these as simply bilateral loans between a lending syndicate and Lendy/SS. T&Cs from SS cannot change that reality either (whatever they may wish to think these will not hold up in court). The only question is whether SS is now in default on this loan. For example, does the loan agreement allow SS to suspend interest payments and does this bilateral loan have the same maturity as the bilateral loan between SS and the final borrower. If SS is in default due to failing to keep up interest payments or not redeeming on the correct date then it has breached it's contractual obligations and the lending syndicate can accelerate on them to recover. End of. Thus I do not see why there is a continued debate regarding the final borrower; this loan is between lenders and SS. Must emphasise here that my lending syndicate now has either a very small or zero holding in this loan (and hasn't held it for a long while) so perhaps something has changed from when the original loan agreement was struck.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Feb 11, 2018 10:55:58 GMT
There are some prominent posters on this forum who ackmowledge that it appears that Lendy are principal on the loan (DFL01 because it is under the "old" terms, but not DFL02 becasuse it is under vthe new, despite the ultimate borrower being the same); however they claim a further clause of the terms and conditions limits this liability.
I am of the opinion that they are liable to the full extent and hence my first point that the risk lies in Lendy themselves not being able to meet that liability and perhaps this is why the accounts have not appeared because of ebate as to whether it should be provided as a potential bad debt. Others are of a different opinion.
This is a potentially complicated and far reaching point beyond this actual loan and it may end up with a court deciding which of the two are correct or something else entirely different, for this reason I have stated my opinion, and briefly that of others, and I do not intend to argue the point with either you or anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Feb 11, 2018 11:52:29 GMT
This loan is undoubtedly under the old terms and therefore Lendy are liable for it to be repaid.The question is however, when can we take enforcement action to recover this from Lendy whilst their recovery from the borrower/asset continues ? The first part of the staement is not in dispute, even Lendy have acknowledged the point. You have the wisdom of Soloman if you can state categorically the second part is true. Ultimately highly qualified lawyers will be paid tens of thousands of pounds, possibly hundreds of thousands, to argue it in front of a judge who will decide. Unless of course Lendy condede the point and come up with possibly millions to meet the shortfall.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Feb 11, 2018 12:11:27 GMT
This loan is undoubtedly under the old terms and therefore Lendy are liable for it to be repaid. The question is however, when can we take enforcement action to recover this from Lendy whilst their recovery from the borrower/asset continues ? Couldn’t Lendy just fold and start again tomorrow as Mendy. That’s probably what the ultimate borrower will do if Lendy pursues them. I hope there’s a positive resolution to this within a reasonable timeframe as I have a significant sum tied up in this. I do think Lendy exploring the build out option is positive. Unsure where the money for the build out would come from and from what’s been written on this thread it seems build out might still result in a loss, so might just be damage limitation. The last default/ build out at least seems to be pushing things towards a conclusion even if there will be an ultimate loss for investors it might be that damage was limited as much as possible.
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818 
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Feb 11, 2018 12:26:09 GMT
And if they did that who'd invest in Mendy?
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 11, 2018 14:13:06 GMT
Mendy? Anyone who didn't research the history. I.e. 99% of punters. However I suspect the FCA would take a dimmer view than they have so far (and 'interim approval' is no available).
But back to DFL1/2 .. if the loans fail to repay, then presumably Ly will pursue the borrower (hopefully to the ends of the earth and beyond) in which case any surplus from one of the borrower's vehicles will presumably form part of the assets which the other loan can call on (depending on what else the borrower, or his borrowing SPVs, owe to whom).
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Feb 12, 2018 15:08:54 GMT
This loan is undoubtedly under the old terms and therefore Lendy are liable for it to be repaid. The question is however, when can we take enforcement action to recover this from Lendy whilst their recovery from the borrower/asset continues ? So where are Lendy going to get the money for this shortfall based upon their latest draft accounts?
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Feb 12, 2018 15:41:07 GMT
This loan is undoubtedly under the old terms and therefore Lendy are liable for it to be repaid. The question is however, when can we take enforcement action to recover this from Lendy whilst their recovery from the borrower/asset continues ? So where are Lendy going to get the money for this shortfall based upon their latest draft accounts? Still only draft accounts so there's probably some more safely squirrelled away somewhere… hold on, weren't the accounts due at CH by the end of September last year? I wonder if Statutory Notices have been issued against the directors yet?
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Feb 12, 2018 15:51:57 GMT
If they don't have the money to pay, a loan will have to be issue to lendy Ltd for them to pay off the shortfall from future profits.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Feb 12, 2018 16:49:22 GMT
Still only draft accounts so there's probably some more safely squirrelled away somewhere… hold on, weren't the accounts due at CH by the end of September last year? I wonder if Statutory Notices have been issued against the directors yet? You reckon? Why are they four months and counting late then?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Feb 12, 2018 16:50:47 GMT
If they don't have the money to pay, a loan will have to be issue to lendy Ltd for them to pay off the shortfall from future profits. Should this prove necessary then any shortfall's made good by agreement following on from discussion, meanwhile let's create breathing space as Lendy work through options to minimise any £shortfalls on either DFL's 1 or 2. How much breathing space, a month, six months (that they nearly have had already) a year, longer?
|
|
ingwer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 47
|
Post by ingwer on Feb 12, 2018 17:02:37 GMT
Remind me again, why is DFL 1 and 2 in such dire straits ?
Difficult to have much sympathy really when this was such badly mis-managed.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Feb 12, 2018 17:05:56 GMT
Should this prove necessary then any shortfall's made good by agreement following on from discussion, meanwhile let's create breathing space as Lendy work through options to minimise any £shortfalls on either DFL's 1 or 2. How much breathing space, a month, six months (that they nearly have had already) a year, longer? Whatever the duration might be, we can't influence the process, all we can do is just wait and see what happens.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Feb 12, 2018 18:02:42 GMT
Still only draft accounts so there's probably some more safely squirrelled away somewhere… hold on, weren't the accounts due at CH by the end of September last year? I wonder if Statutory Notices have been issued against the directors yet? You reckon? Why are they four months and counting late then? Sorry, I forgot to turn on sarcastic mode… No, I don't reckon and for a company handling millions of Pounds of others people money to be this late in submitting their accounts as well as directors risking being hauled up on criminal charges is totally inexcusable and should worry the hell out of anyone still investing.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 12, 2018 18:27:28 GMT
Remind me again, why is DFL 1 and 2 in such dire straits ? DFL 1 - the developer spent all the money, but didn't manage to build all of the houses (or in the case of 5 of them didn't come even close). I drove past last week and wondered who is paying to keep the scaffolding in place.
|
|
