|
|
Post by winger on Mar 8, 2018 19:50:20 GMT
Yes yes but it's a question of the timing of the repayment. Lendy's position, yet to be tested in the Court, is that they only have to repay when the borrower repays them, which is what the "old" T&C say. I think it's not as complex as that. Their own pdf says very simply: "OLD STRUCTURE If a loan went into Default, Lendy Ltd continued to pay interest at the normal rate of 1% per month." DFL001 is definitely in Default, so why aren't Lendy still paying me interest for it every month? It started in March 2016.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 8, 2018 22:30:31 GMT
Let me put it this way, although they may owe you the money they say they don't have to actually pay it to you until they are paid by the borrower. It's about timing. How long they can postpone payment is unknown. Possibly indefinitely or possibly a Court will rule that this is unreasonable and set some sort of end date.
|
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 9, 2018 0:03:33 GMT
Let me put it this way, although they may owe you the money they say they don't have to actually pay it to you until they are paid by the borrower. It's about timing. How long they can postpone payment is unknown. Possibly indefinitely or possibly a Court will rule that this is unreasonable and set some sort of end date. It doesn't say they will owe you money, so I don't know where you got that from – it clearly says they will pay you money, monthly. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 9, 2018 7:13:28 GMT
Don't shoot the messenger - I am just trying to explain Lendy's legal opinion. It is pointless banging on that we have lent to Lendy and not the borrower when AIUI that is not disputed. The timing of the payments to lenders and the link to payments from borrowers is the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 9, 2018 9:25:41 GMT
Nope, it is her explanation of her interpretation of Ly's (legal) position, which they have explained (badly, inconsistently, and sometimes at odds with one or other of their various T&Cs ..the T&Cs which they appear to believe they can change at will). Even the original (?!) T&Cs, I believe, contained the clause that "the repayment does not fall due until Lendy is repaid by the borrower" (Clauses 4.5 & 4.6 of the \'old\' terms).
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 9, 2018 11:28:10 GMT
Even the original (?!) T&Cs, I believe, contained the clause that "the repayment does not fall due until Lendy is repaid by the borrower" (Clauses 4.5 & 4.6 of the \'old\' terms). In my opinion, the key point is 4.4 "Lendy guarantees the enforceability of all its existing Loan Agreements.". Until or unless the loan agreement becomes unenforceable, 4.6 still applies, but (at least) in a situation where the security has been sold for an amount insufficient to repay lenders in full, and the residue of the loan is unenforceable against an insolvent borrower, then I would expect that to trigger repayment by Lendy under section 4.4. Given the small number of remaining "old T&Cs" loans and the significant profits that Lendy have generated based in part on the confidence created by that guarantee, I suspect the easiest way for them to get rid of the old T&C loans at this time would be to divert sufficient company profits to the provision fund to allow that to buy the entire outstanding balance of any "old T&C" loans as and when the individual loans default (and do so immediately for those which have already defaulted). (Such funds should eventually end up back as Lendy's profits if they do in fact recover the loan as promised...) Standing behind guarantees already made, rather than trying to wriggle out of them is, after all, the behaviour that I would expect from a company that still expects me to trust it to handle my money...
|
|
hector
Member of DD Central
Posts: 122
Likes: 162
|
Post by hector on Mar 9, 2018 12:42:00 GMT
Even the original (?!) T&Cs, I believe, contained the clause that "the repayment does not fall due until Lendy is repaid by the borrower" (Clauses 4.5 & 4.6 of the \'old\' terms). In my opinion, the key point is 4.4 "Lendy guarantees the enforceability of all its existing Loan Agreements.". Until or unless the loan agreement becomes unenforceable, 4.6 still applies, but (at least) in a situation where the security has been sold for an amount insufficient to repay lenders in full, and the residue of the loan is unenforceable against an insolvent borrower, then I would expect that to trigger repayment by Lendy under section 4.4. Given the small number of remaining "old T&Cs" loans and the significant profits that Lendy have generated based in part on the confidence created by that guarantee, I suspect the easiest way for them to get rid of the old T&C loans at this time would be to divert sufficient company profits to the provision fund to allow that to buy the entire outstanding balance of any "old T&C" loans as and when the individual loans default (and do so immediately for those which have already defaulted). (Such funds should eventually end up back as Lendy's profits if they do in fact recover the loan as promised...) Standing behind guarantees already made, rather than trying to wriggle out of them is, after all, the behaviour that I would expect from a company that still expects me to trust it to handle my money... Previous profits are only any use to creditors or to support the business for the future if they are retained within the business. Profits which have been removed for other private use (such as paying dividends to directors) are gone, usually never to be seen in the business again. Mr P Gr**n being an exception to that with regard the Pensions Regulator.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 12, 2018 15:06:57 GMT
Guys, I am pretty sure that the old T&Cs state that Lendy shall be bound to repay the lenders only up to the amounts received from the ultimate borrower. This is a very common provision which is perfectly legally valid (and I say that as a lawyer drafting finance documentations everyday). I thimk you are correct in terms of what the T&Cs state but whether hey will withstand legal challenge is another matter. Depends on the amount bof loss and whether someone wants to challenge them
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 12, 2018 15:10:18 GMT
Id DFL001 is not on Lendy's balance sheet, who's balance sheet is it on? All loans are on Lendy's balance sheet because the accounts have been prepared on the "substance over form" basis. Legally it doesn't prove anything either way with regard to DFL001/2
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Mar 18, 2018 4:21:48 GMT
STOP THE PRESS .. there has been an update on this loan!
.... wait .. I'm just .. hmm ... never mind .. carry on.
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Mar 30, 2018 12:57:39 GMT
UPDATE:
In the event that settlement cannot be agreed within the next 1-2 weeks, we will likely proceed with the build out option for the site.'
So put the borrowers offer to settle the loan to us and we'll have a vote as usual.
We'll vote to accept the offer and recover the shortfall from Lendy. Nobody wants a build out.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 30, 2018 13:03:01 GMT
UPDATE: In the event that settlement cannot be agreed within the next 1-2 weeks, we will likely proceed with the build out option for the site.' So put the borrowers offer to settle the loan to us and we'll have a vote as usual. We'll vote to accept the offer and recover the shortfall from Lendy. Nobody wants a build out. Yes, I wonder if they will be as keen on us voting on their old T&C losses!
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Mar 30, 2018 13:08:55 GMT
Well the vote is in the new Terms and conditions. The can't withold the offer from us as that would in breach of FCA.
Maybe they didn't think that one through?
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Mar 30, 2018 14:21:42 GMT
I think a build out under these terms would be messy.
Given the choice, all investor will vote to off load this. If Lendy were to go against the vote and build out and the recovery was less than £6m then Lendy would be facing bigger losses and would look even more incompetent.
Also, if further development funding is required, where will it come from ?
Lendy, is a P2P platform, not the next carillion. Best to get this one offloaded and move on.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Mar 30, 2018 18:39:28 GMT
I think a build out under these terms would be messy. Given the choice, all investor will vote to off load this. If Lendy were to go against the vote and build out and the recovery was less than £6m then Lendy would be facing bigger losses and would look even more incompetent. Also, if further development funding is required, where will it come from ? Lendy, is a P2P platform, not the next carillion. Best to get this one offloaded and move on. I do agree, however I suspect the prior offer from the original developer that only left us with a ~£3m loss across DFL01/02 may be off the table and he is now offering even less. I can't see any way adding more costs is going to get a better return. I severely regret leaving the small amount I still have in both these loans. Live and learn.
|
|
