|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 7:10:52 GMT
My feeling on pbl20 is that there will be a shortfall in the recovery.
SS will have to use the PF to alleviate it, but of course they will not deplete all of it and most of all will only have in mind the capital invested.
Would be crazy to think the PF should be used to pay interest on a default loan. Clearly people should feel lucky if the model proves working and gives back the full capital to everyone. This does not seem the nice case where the security can be sold easily at a price close to the evaluation...
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 5, 2016 7:59:34 GMT
dualinvestor As we discussed on earlier threads, i agree £1m may not be far of the mark when this concludes... which now makes me think, if SS have enough funds to cover the PF to that amount, why not pay lenders off immediately, use some funds from the PF as well, and see the default thro to conclusion behind closed doors, no fuss, no negative publicity. Notwithstanding the legal niceties of whether PBL20, being subject to the old T&Cs, is a debt from Lendy itself or the ultimate borrower I don't think they would want to create a precedent. Section 15.1 of the (new) Terms and Conditions states "......that we are in no way liable for the debts of borrowers to you. You acknowledge that you are lending entirely at your own risk." For them to more or less immediately compensate lenders before the outcome of the default can be reasonably known would seem to be in direct contradiction of that statement. Whilst it is believed the PF has sufficient funds AT THE MOMENT there is no clarification as to its whereabouts or legal status, further when the extent of the shotfall, if any, is known there may be other "claims" upon it.
|
|
will
Member of DD Central
Posts: 98 
Likes: 57
|
Post by will on Jun 5, 2016 9:19:45 GMT
The most important thing for SS (and for investors who want to continue using SS) is that they protect their cashflow. IMO they shouldn't do anything or make and promises until the issue is resolved and up until they point they should be painting a picture of the worst case scenario. Under promise, over deliver and all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Jun 5, 2016 9:28:59 GMT
I think the wording should be that interest will continue to accrue and will be paid if there are sufficient funds from sale after the default. Investors should be paid in this order: 1 Capital of investors up to point of default. 2,Interest to point of default. 3 Interest after default for those who held prior to default. 4 Capital for those purchasing after default. 5 Interest accrued after default for those who purchased after default. I would use the provision fund to top up to 100% for number 1 and possibly to 75% for number 2. If the provision fund has to come into play, in my opinion payouts should not be paid for 3,4 and 5. The PF simply must be 2% of existing Unpaid loans AND must keep growing and not be depleted each time a loan is successfully paid back. I thought No2 had already been taken care of with investors already having received their interest up to point of default? I stand to be corrected, but I think you will find that they will only have been paid interest up to 30/4. The default took place in May, so no interest would have been paid at the end of May.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianac on Jun 5, 2016 9:42:20 GMT
I thought No2 had already been taken care of with investors already having received their interest up to point of default? I stand to be corrected, but I think you will find that they will only have been paid interest up to 30/4. The default took place in May, so no interest would have been paid at the end of May. Consider yourself corrected, I got interest up to date of Default Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 5, 2016 9:42:26 GMT
I believe savingstream have confirmed that interest has been paid up to 27 May, the day they declared it in default (although I suspect the real date of legal default was 24 May, the date Administrators were appointed) |
|
|
|
Post by rebull on Jun 5, 2016 9:49:35 GMT
Just started to look at this forum over the last couple of days, I think there is a very good chance we will all get our money back, if we do not get the interest then OK so what. That's all part and parcel of playing this game, we take the chance and accept the outcome, we all know the risks....Has anyone given the owners of the garden centre a second thought, they will loose everything and i do not think it was through there own fault. Some people just want to feel sorry for themselves because they might loose a few quid interest. I wish they would behave and grow up, accept it and move on. Selfishness is one of my pet hates
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 5, 2016 10:05:41 GMT
Just started to look at this forum over the last couple of days, I think there is a very good chance we will all get our money back, if we do not get the interest then OK so what. That's all part and parcel of playing this game, we take the chance and accept the outcome, we all know the risks....Has anyone given the owners of the garden centre a second thought, they will loose everything and i do not think it was through there own fault. Some people just want to feel sorry for themselves because they might loose a few quid interest. I wish they would behave and grow up, accept it and move on. Selfishness is one of my pet hates Agreed on your point about interest However, I did some research on the borrower before and after the default and I have little sympathy for them ( see here). They bought the business last year, in the anticipation that they could get PP to turn the site into a holiday park; as far as I can see they had little to no interest in the garden centre. When PP was withdrawn (the borrower knew that PP was going to be refused) they simply wanted rid of the site, and then eventually I think they wiped their hands of it and simply to Lendy Ltd they can have it. There was some correspondence between the borrower and the planners available online (some of it has been removed) and he was bullish and dismissive of the local concerns; at the end of the day, I think he just threw his toys out of the pram.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 5, 2016 10:33:59 GMT
I think everyone has morphed into a dogs, chasing their tales  The resolution will take time, and time takes time. |
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Jun 5, 2016 11:02:52 GMT
I stand to be corrected, but I think you will find that they will only have been paid interest up to 30/4. The default took place in May, so no interest would have been paid at the end of May. Consider yourself corrected, I got interest up to date of Default Brian I stand corrected. That is good news.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianac on Jun 5, 2016 15:12:50 GMT
Agreed on your point about interest However, I did some research on the borrower before and after the default and I have little sympathy for them ( see here). They bought the business last year, in the anticipation that they could get PP to turn the site into a holiday park; as far as I can see they had little to no interest in the garden centre. When PP was withdrawn (the borrower knew that PP was going to be refused) they simply wanted rid of the site, and then eventually I think they wiped their hands of it and simply to Lendy Ltd they can have it. There was some correspondence between the borrower and the planners available online (some of it has been removed) and he was bullish and dismissive of the local concerns; at the end of the day, I think he just threw his toys out of the pram. One thing bothers me, if he is in default, surely therefore he must be bankrupt? if so, how can he go to Canada and start again there? Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 5, 2016 15:36:01 GMT
Agreed on your point about interest However, I did some research on the borrower before and after the default and I have little sympathy for them ( see here). They bought the business last year, in the anticipation that they could get PP to turn the site into a holiday park; as far as I can see they had little to no interest in the garden centre. When PP was withdrawn (the borrower knew that PP was going to be refused) they simply wanted rid of the site, and then eventually I think they wiped their hands of it and simply to Lendy Ltd they can have it. There was some correspondence between the borrower and the planners available online (some of it has been removed) and he was bullish and dismissive of the local concerns; at the end of the day, I think he just threw his toys out of the pram. One thing bothers me, if he is in default, surely therefore he must be bankrupt? if so, how can he go to Canada and start again there? Brian As far as I am aware there is nothing to suggest that the director/s of the borrower are bankrupt. You have to distinguish between the company and the owners of the company. The owners may, or may not, have put everything they had into the company but unless they personally guaranteed any borrowing by the company, including goods obtained on credit, they are not liable for the company's debts. The Administrator and/or eventual Liquidator might take action against them in the future to recover money for the benefit of creditors if they are found to have been undertaking certain illegal activities but such actions are rare and a long way off. Their names will be associated with the failure of the comapany and whether they put it on their CVs or not it is unlikely that it will make it easy to find finance for any new project whether in Canada or anywhere else but it is not, per se, an obstacle to "start again"
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 5, 2016 17:25:02 GMT
One thing bothers me, if he is in default, surely therefore he must be bankrupt? if so, how can he go to Canada and start again there? As far as I am aware there is nothing to suggest that the director/s of the borrower are bankrupt. You have to distinguish between the company and the owners of the company. Yes, but who exactly is the borrower? The Particulars of this loan include... On the basis of that, ISTM pretty clear that the borrower is a person, not a company. If the borrower is a person, then if the proceeds from the security sale are insufficient to repay all capital, fees, and accrued interest, it should be possible to pursue the borrower for any shortfall. If they don't have sufficient other assets then they will end up being made bankrupt. If the administration/receivership takes long enough, of course, the borrower could escape to Canada before any shortfall is crystallised. If the borrower actually is a company rather than a person, then I'd say the loan Particulars are rather misleading. Based on the extract above, ISTM that it would be reasonable for a potential investor to presume from the borrower's reported track record that they had some personal assets and that those would provide additional security for the loan. If the Particulars don't reflect reality, then SS/Lendy could decide to use the PF to repay investors' capital and interest as that might allow them to avoid any awkwardness over the quality of the Particulars.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 5, 2016 17:48:16 GMT
As far as I am aware there is nothing to suggest that the director/s of the borrower are bankrupt. You have to distinguish between the company and the owners of the company. Yes, but who exactly is the borrower? The Particulars of this loan include... On the basis of that, ISTM pretty clear that the borrower is a person, not a company. If the borrower is a person, then if the proceeds from the security sale are insufficient to repay all capital, fees, and accrued interest, it should be possible to pursue the borrower for any shortfall. If they don't have sufficient other assets then they will end up being made bankrupt. If the administration/receivership takes long enough, of course, the borrower could escape to Canada before any shortfall is crystallised. If the borrower actually is a company rather than a person, then I'd say the loan Particulars are rather misleading. Based on the extract above, ISTM that it would be reasonable for a potential investor to presume from the borrower's reported track record that they had some personal assets and that those would provide additional security for the loan. If the Particulars don't reflect reality, then SS/Lendy could decide to use the PF to repay investors' capital and interest as that might allow them to avoid any awkwardness over the quality of the Particulars. The borrower is definitely a company, not a person... The garden centre website notice states that "E** W****** R****** Limited, trading as M*** R**** Garden Centre" is in Administration. If you search that company on companies house, you will find the first charge on the garden centre.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 5, 2016 17:54:43 GMT
On the basis of that, ISTM pretty clear that the borrower is a person, not a company. Whatever the descriptions say it is a Limited Company that has given the security. It would be most unusual for a company to guarantee a peronal debt it is almost always the other way around, especially when the company in question was only formed a couple of years ago and did not appear to have traded before the loan was advanced. BTW Bankruptcy is a formal process that can only occur after a creditor or the bankrupt present a petition to the court, unless the debtor has other assets there is little point of going to the expense of the procedure, especially if they no longer live in the jurisdiction (i.e. the United Kingdom) Edit As far as I know the director(s) did not guarantee the Lendy Ltd loan and it is entirely possible, probable even, that they have not personally guaranteed any other debts of the company so will be able to walk away from the company not owing anyone anything.
|
|
