DFL005 - Arboretum, Land with PP - SUSPENDED

Useful.

For me the clarication most useful was:

”Negotiations with the borrower
While the law, and almost certainly the loan agreement, will allow the lender to appoint a receiver or administrator in the event of default, it may not always be in the lender’s best interests to do so. For example, if the market has fallen, the value of the secured property may not be sufficient to repay the amount of loan outstanding. In a depressed market (notably that in the UK and Ireland from 2008) banks may also have concerns that appointing receivers to sell a large number of properties subject to loans in
default may itself have a depressing effect on market values as a whole.
The lender may therefore sometimes be best advised to work with the borrower in agreeing acceptable terms to vary repayments or to ignore a breach in the LTV covenant in order to avoid the more drastic action of enforcing the default provisions. In so doing the lender will need to work closely with insolvency professionals to ensure the best outcome and in the case of property loans this will usually be a Registered Property Receiver, despite the fact that a formal appointment may never in practice be required.
Ultimately the lender is likely to be seeking a course of action which allows the best chance of recovering its loan and any outstanding interest while at the same time acting, if possible, in the best interests of the borrower.
Appointment of an administrator
An administrator is appointed by a lender
to act as an interim chief executive when a company is insolvent. The administrator’s
job is to run the company as a going
concern while options as to its future (for example, recapitalisation, sale or break-up) are explored.”

No of course this is not new, or that anyone works for free, I wouldn’t, why would they? 

What was useful is the clear definitions of the practitioner’s trade group between receivers and administrators. A few CEO’s could usefully be replaced until the business’ are sorted out. After all the borrower stands to lose all of their money if the project fails. Unless it as a scam from the start - which I am sure some are.

Can anyone explain to me why given that the asset looks to repay the loan that this shouldn't now immediately be called in. Sell the security, return monies to investors.

I can offer no explanation, but I have wondered if going in heavy on this might turn over a few stones in relation to the doomed sheds project that might be a bit too embarrassing.

Because Lendy woefully misled the public when advertising "fully indemnified security values to protect against rogue valuations" with "plenty of equity" and then proceeded to collect securities and make a profit from capital on the basis of rogue valuations, and failed to take any action against the parties indemnifying them.

Thus we arrive at misled investors and securities that have no buyer interest even when being sold at 70% of the "indemnified" value. 

It's a common theme around these parts.

FYI - I realise that this issue is annoying (I too have capital tied up in this loan). From personal experience in matters where I lend on a private capacity and not through any P2Ps, it takes on average 4-12 months to finanlise deals where multi parties are involved. Delays from legal issues, to one party "thinking it over" in detail, are the primary reasons for the delay if the finance is readily available.