Lendy video

ISTM that this would be hard to 'prove' in court.  The valuation is an educated guess of value at the time of the valuation.  If the security is sold a year or so later and doesn't fetch that value, there are all sorts of legitimate reasons that might happen -- failure to maintain adequately, neighbourhood goes out of fashion, general market downturn, didn't market the property well enough, didn't wait long enough for the right buyer to come along, etc., etc.

AC have a number of cases which are heading for sales for amounts well below valuations, and they've been asked by investors whether claims against the valuers might be possible.  AC have said 'Yes', but I don't get the feeling they think any significant recovery would be likely, and IIRC they have pointed out that litigation costs could be substantial, with no guarantee of success.  As with any litigation, before embarking on such a path, the platform -- or investors if they're asked to vote -- would have to decide that the net value of a positive result outweighs the net cost of negative result.

To sue, or not to sue, that is the question! 

I'm really not sure whether I prefer the SS situation where, AFAIK, they'll decide whether any case is worth pursuing, or the AC situation, where they'll tell lenders little more than how much a lawsuit might cost, and ask their investors to vote.  Actually, I'm not even sure they'll give that much info because it probably falls in the category of 'how long is a piece of string'.  AC definitely won't give a recommendation, or say what they'd do if the decision was theirs to make.  Investors' opinions will cover a huge range -- from those who'll say "don't bother suing" and "distribute the money being held back for the lawyers", to those determined to pursue the valuer no matter how much it costs.  Not knowing any details of any specific case, I think I'm of the opinion that the only ones who win in this sort of dispute are the lawyers!

I think it may be worth mentioning that a sale at less than the loan exposure is not a total loss. The difference is the risk we take in return for the relatively high reward. Also, SS operate a fund which will, hopefully, at least in part cover any shortfall.

It is worth noting that Liam and Tim are very astute and wish to build a flagship business, so there no doubt in my mind that they will take all reasonable measures to protect this. I should also mention that like all subscribers to this forum, I am merely an investor and have no other interest is SS, or alternative agenda.

Still not quite sure why they want to push for new investors unless they have noticed that a lot of there ones that were core investors have not been bothering much latley due to the amount they are getting and are leaving

I think there are an awful lot of sign ups who never invest, they simply find it too difficult via the SM and are not prepared to be patient via the PF.
and TBH the way the loans disappear out o the window , why push for more investors at this point in time, unless they have even bigger loan ambitions in the pipeline.

must be a first actually using investors rather then actors

A few weeks?... Are you not practicing the FFF procedure.