PBL120 - S** Building, Newcastle-U-Lyme - DEFAULT RECOVERED

"...........best for their reputation ........"

Among Borrowers.  

I voted No. We've got a good building, easily worth what we're owed. Send a message to any other borrowers who think they can get away with it.


Let the interest keep accruing, Lendy should pay it to us, proceeds allowing.

If "a long time ago" was after the loan was already overdue, you'd still be owed interest. I'd guess that if the voting option is open to you, it'd be weighted by the interest you're owed.

The vote from your perspective is whether you want to write off that accrued interest for no personal benefit, or retain the right to receive it as and when an adequate recovery is made.


In terms of the wider context of the vote, it seems to me from the description that Lendy have been trying to push for a better deal, but need to put it to the test - they can only say "we expect lenders would vote against such a deal" for so long before the counterparty figures they'll call their bluff and claim that this was their best offer. When Lendy can instead say "we've put it to a vote, and our lenders did not find the deal acceptable", this is a much stronger statement.

I would not be surprised if rejecting the offer on the table "magically" produces an improved offer... e.g. paying part of the accrued interest but not the bonus, or "meeting in the middle" in some other way. By anchoring the negotiation on "full return of capital without accrued interest", any further offer that returns anything over and above the capital repayment will stand a better chance of success than if they'd come to us with that as their first offer. The debt refinancer seems to have got their negotiating tactics figured out... but does Lendy?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a massive proportion of voters who somehow wanted what Lendy wanted.

Can anyone do a back of the fag packet calcuation for some numbers, as these are lacking in the Lendy analysis? 
If the figure of £3m to finish the rest of the flats is accurate (got that from the local rag), and 168 apartments still can be sold, it surely would be of interest to someone.

I get the feeling that Lendy and the borrower are on the same side at this stage as they want the build to complete, just these pesky investors that want their interest which is holding everything up. It won't be the last time that Lendy and our desired outcome is at a divergence.

There is not enough information attached to the voting text, to allow lenders to make an informed decision.





Lenders need to know exactly how much capital and interest is outstanding overall and approximately how much costs are likely to be during the recovery procedure. As importantly, Lenders also need to know how much the building (as it now stands) is worth. Until we are given this information, how can Lendy possibly expect investors to make such a decision ?

This information should be provided as a matter of urgency and certainly well before the voting deadline.

Another important issue is, in respect of the student rooms that have apparently been sold, surely they will be sold subject to contract and surely the contract will be subject to completion of the communal parts. Therefore we need to know whether or not all of the communal areas are completed. If not, there could be a massive devaluation of the property and recoveries of money if all of the rooms (not flats or apartments) can demand their money back due to a breach of the contractual terms (i.e. the communal parts not being completed by a certain date).

There could well be unilateral notices on a number of the room sales, which may take preference over Lendy's charge. All of this information should form part of the voting text so lenders know what they are really voting for.

Let's hope the powers that be are reading these posts and can do something about it.

I voted no. Would have preferred Lendy share further information as mentioned by everyone. But happy with my decision.