|
|
Post by billy169 on Sept 3, 2019 17:03:55 GMT
I wonder who got rich on this,I wonder.??
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139 
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Sept 4, 2019 5:12:41 GMT
well it seems the only offers for these sites are from our borrower himself.i don't think all this has affected mr SD and his lifestyle to much.what happened to all these PGs and other BS we got from lendy.it seems mr SD will end up getting these sites for a fraction of what WE paid for them and with another SPV or whatever will continue where he left off.as some of these sites are still only plots of land he will not worry to much about student accommodation and get some p2p mugs to fund his new plans for luxury apps and studios.how the heck people like SD and LB get away with millions by simply hiding behind companies and then folding is all wrong.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 11, 2021 21:51:58 GMT
2 Hour hearing tomorrow...
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 12, 2021 11:42:36 GMT
The hearing has adjourned for 30 minutes to allow counsel for the applicant to take instructions.
It would appear the order sought requires backdating which presents the issue of which underlying law was in place at the time. It is understood that Brexit has changed the rules in this regard.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 12, 2021 12:28:32 GMT
UPDATE: HHJ Jackson sitting as a Judge of the High Court at the B&PC in Leeds ruled the "Court is concerned about the impact of the new regulations, and impact of those on its discretion" ... to make the order requested.
Explaining she didn't expect Counsel to "Google during her submissions" HHJ Jackson adjourned the "genuinely urgent" application until next week to allow Counsel time to properly prepare new submissions on that point.
It is understood the basis of the application is to challenge the validity of the extension of the Administration in Jan 2020.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 16, 2021 12:08:01 GMT
"Duff & Phelps apply to correct Duff order in M****co Cardiff case" - Insolvency specialists accidentally let administration expire after omission of Investors in consent exercise
In September 2016 the peer-to-peer lending company Lendy Ltd facilitated a loan to M****co (Cardiff) Ltd. Lendy were acting as agent for some 3600 retail investors who collectively financed a facility of £6.4m, secured by a First Charge against a site with the benefit of planning permission in Cardiff. The loan description on the Lendy website describes the site:
Development site with planning permission for student accommodation. The proposed scheme comprises of 6 detached 3 storey buildings providing a total of 249 self-contained studio rooms.
The company M****co (Cardiff) Ltd were placed into administration on 17th Jan 2019 prior to any development work having taken place, and Mr Phillip Francis Duffy and Mr Steven Muncaster (from insolvency firm Duff & Phelps) were appointed Joint Administrators.
According to the Joint Administrators report dated March 8th 2019 the secured creditor Lendy Ltd are owed some £6.46m excluding contractual interest and charges. A further £9.2m is also due to ‘Non-Preferential Creditors’ of which some £8.9m is due to “over 100 investors who have all put down deposits ranging from 25%-75% of the purchase price of each unit”.
It is understood from court documents filed by the administrators that between May 2016 and July 2018 the company exchanged contracts with 150 of these investors whose interest in the property was protected by way of a unilateral notice (UN1).
Today’s hearing was an application made by the joint administrators for retrospective administration orders. Appearing on behalf of them was barrister Ms Georgia Purnell of Enterprise Chambers.
In court papers submitted by the Joint Administrators the court was told that the application for retrospective administration orders “arises from the Applicants’ concern that the purported extension of the term of the administration of the company by secured creditor consent to 17 January 2021 may have been invalid”.
It is understood that the company applied for an extension of the administration on 6th November 2019, as the initial 12-month-period was due to expire a number of weeks later in January 2020. The concern is eloquently described in written submissions by Ms Purnell:
The Applicants obtained the consent of the administrators of Lendy to extend the term of the administration to 17 January 2021. At the time, the Applicants believed Lendy to be the only “secured creditor” whose consent was required for the purposes of paragraphs 76 and 78. At that stage, therefore it was assumed that the appointment was valid and the relevant statutory requirements had been met. The Applicants therefore proceeded in the belief that the administration and their appointment continued to exist.
However, it was only after the application to the Court for an extension having taken advice on a similar but unconnected matter and considered s.248 of the Act that the Applicants realised that the Investors, as lien holders, are and should have been treated as “secured creditors”. It was not a conscious decision not to seek the Investors’ consent and the Applicants now understand and appreciate they possibly should have been treated as secured creditors and their consent obtained. The Applicants therefore consider that the term of the administration may have ended on 17 January 2020 and the consent procedure may have been defective, and possibly invalid, and make these applications to the Court accordingly.
Application 1
“An application for a retrospective administration order which shall take effect on 17 January 2020 at 12.15pm and a retrospective order that the administration be extended to 17 January 2022.“
The Judge considered the effect of Paragraph 77b of the Insolvency Act which states:
[An application to extend the Administration] “may not be made after the expiry of the administrator’s term of office.”
If the administration had expired in January 2020, and Ms Purnell was unsuccessful in her endeavours to argue that the phrase ‘may not’ is not the same as ‘must not’ then this application would fail.
Application 2
“In the alternative, an application for two successive retrospective administration orders. The first to take effect on 17 January 2020 at 12.15pm and the second to take effect on 17 January 2021 at 12.15pm."
Ms Purnell accepted that the case of Kaupthing Capital “cast doubt” on the court’s ability to make this alternative order. However, she contended in written submissions that the matter before the court today was “distinguishable” and in any event “with the upmost respect for the learned Judges, wrongly decided and not binding on this Court.” Kaupthing Capital stated:
“Mr Todd QC sought to get round this by submitting that the court could and should make two administration orders, one following immediately upon the other. If Mr Todd QC’s submission was correct, this device could be deployed in every case to get round the prohibition in paragraph 77(1)(b) against extending the term. The submission must be wrong and I reject it”.
The alternative application
As an alternative His Honour Judge Davis-White QC considered whether a so-called G-Tech order could be made instead.
As the maximum term for an Administration Order is 12 months, it is understood a G-Tech order is backdated 364 days. This would allow a single day to allow an application for a 12-month-extension to be made.
Assuming this G-Tech order had been made yesterday, which it wasn’t, this would mean the period of time from the original Administration ending and the order taking effect is some 4 weeks. Considering that “it may be the reality that such little happened [in that period] that it’s not worth wasting time on” HHJ Davis-White QC asked for further evidence to be filed by Thursday confirming whether that was indeed the case.
Ms Purnell also explained that the property was in the “early stages” of a sale to the Welsh Government for some £1.55m, and this was expected to complete within “the next few months”. She told the court that the existing UN1 holders were expected to retain their status after the sale.
His Honour Judge Davis-White QC reserved judgement in the matter and will hand down “in a week or so”.
CR-2021-LDS-000*** M****co (Cardiff) Ltd – Administration Application MS Teams
Before His Honour Judge Davis-White QC
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
In the Business and Property Courts in Leeds
Monday 15th February 2021 14.00 T/E 2hrs
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 23, 2021 22:46:15 GMT
The judgement was handed down at 2pm today and a link has been placed in DDC
|
|
joe91
Member of DD Central
Posts: 53
Likes: 62
|
Post by joe91 on Feb 23, 2021 23:46:35 GMT
So the realistic value of the security today will be say £5.1M, resulting in an LTV of 80%+. As the development commences I guess the value will dip briefly, because of the cost of reinstating the land should the project fail. Would anyone care please to take a guess at what the value might dip to, and roughly how far into the project? No the realistic value of the security is £6.229m. If it was sold in a distressed state within 3 months, then £5.09m. But, but, but, Lendy say it's worth £5m, easy......................
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 24, 2021 11:27:41 GMT
No the realistic value of the security is £6.229m. If it was sold in a distressed state within 3 months, then £5.09m. But, but, but, Lendy say it's worth £5m, easy...................... Well it is worth £5m, easy...
The administrators are selling it for £1.5m with the UN1's still attached. The UN1's are valued at £8.9m.
"if a party were to acquire the property with the security interests intact, they would have to complete the development to comply with the terms of the sale contracts, and then complete the sales at the contracted prices, net of previously received deposits. That would reduce developer's profit by some £xxx,000, which would impact on the residual value and the sale price. "
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 15, 2021 19:38:46 GMT
1 Hour application hearing tomorrow in the High Court.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 16, 2021 13:46:51 GMT
Today's hearing was a whole series of applications concerning: - Replacement of Mr Duffy as JA due to retirement - Approval of the JA's fee's on a time spent basis - Approval of pre-admin expenses (surprisingly complicated)
The court was told that the property had been sold to the Welsh Government and the administration was coming to an end.
We were told the 'investors' who had purchased long-leasehold interests in the off-plan student flats were retaining their charges post-administration as the Welsh Government had agreed to respect them. A situation which led Ms Purnell, counsel for the JA's, to remark that “the investors have done quite well out of the administration”, especially as the Lendy charge, we were told, had priority.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Jul 16, 2021 18:16:42 GMT
Today's hearing was a whole series of applications concerning: - Replacement of Mr Duffy as JA due to retirement - Approval of the JA's fee's on a time spent basis - Approval of pre-admin expenses (surprisingly complicated)
The court was told that the property had been sold to the Welsh Government and the administration was coming to an end.
We were told the 'investors' who had purchased long-leasehold interests in the off-plan student flats were retaining their charges post-administration as the Welsh Government had agreed to respect them. A situation which led Ms Purnell, counsel for the JA's, to remark that “the investors have done quite well out of the administration”, especially as the Lendy charge, we were told, had priority.
So do we not have priority?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 16, 2021 23:12:28 GMT
Today's hearing was a whole series of applications concerning: - Replacement of Mr Duffy as JA due to retirement - Approval of the JA's fee's on a time spent basis - Approval of pre-admin expenses (surprisingly complicated)
The court was told that the property had been sold to the Welsh Government and the administration was coming to an end.
We were told the 'investors' who had purchased long-leasehold interests in the off-plan student flats were retaining their charges post-administration as the Welsh Government had agreed to respect them. A situation which led Ms Purnell, counsel for the JA's, to remark that “the investors have done quite well out of the administration”, especially as the Lendy charge, we were told, had priority.
So do we not have priority? No, and it was never claimed we did. UN1s registered ahead of the SSSH charge have priority and that is disclosed & the security 'discounted' as a result. The question is what is happening to UN1s registered after the SSSH charge. AIUI these will be overreached by the sale and those purchasers lose their money, though this position may have changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 17, 2021 7:23:16 GMT
Excuse my extreme naively, but the platform as presented, states " primary security,,first legal charge.
Those statements are what most of us used .
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Jul 17, 2021 8:51:11 GMT
Excuse my extreme naively, but the platform as presented, states " primary security,,first legal charge. Those statements are what most of us used . Yes, lendy are scammers and deliberately misled us. Most people who invested would have assumed first charge is first priority. It should have been made very clear that was not the case. The whole thing was one massive con
|
|
