markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Oct 3, 2016 8:37:23 GMT
Transferring an asset to escape a potential PG is fraud. The liquidator will always look for such activities, but proving it (especially if done some time before the loan goes bad) is difficult and it may not be worth pursuing. Directors will often be disqualified in such circumstances from being a Director again, although some use relatives to front other ventures to get around this.
If the house is occupied, it may also be difficult to enforce the guarantee even in the Directors name, often the best you can do is get a share of the proceeds when they sell. Charges over residences are thus less useful than over business premises or let properties.
In my experience, many Owner/Directors try really hard to raise cash to trade out of their problems. Part of this may well be giving an actual charge over the property to some other lender or extending their mortgage before the loans are defaulted leaving few assets to reclaim under the PG. Remember, more businesses collapse as a result of liquidity than profitability. So an owner will see the profits to be made while ignoring that they can't meet their liabilities in the time before they make this profit! When they are forced into a fire sale to meet liabilities, it is the discounts they have to give and costs of the sales that make the business insolvent.
- PM Thanks propman. Very clear. "Transferring an asset to escape a potential PG is fraud." ... is it necessary to draw a distinction between the business being made bankrupt, and the guarantor being made bankrupt? business bankruptWould the liquidator enforce payment of the guarantee, assuming that the directors face limited liability? Or is a PG effectively waiving Ltd liability? guarantor bankruptIt is commonly not necessary for bankruptcy to enforce a PG - it is only necessary for the loan agreement to be breached. In this case, with the business's activities and the guarantor's activities being separated, I could imagine that transferring assets would not be fraud? Particularly in the case of a third-party (non-director) guarantor?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,035
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 3, 2016 9:39:17 GMT
"Transferring an asset to escape a potential PG is fraud." ... is it necessary to draw a distinction between the business being made bankrupt, and the guarantor being made bankrupt? business bankruptWould the liquidator enforce payment of the guarantee, assuming that the directors face limited liability? Or is a PG effectively waiving Ltd liability? guarantor bankruptIt is commonly not necessary for bankruptcy to enforce a PG - it is only necessary for the loan agreement to be breached. In this case, with the business's activities and the guarantor's activities being separated, I could imagine that transferring assets would not be fraud? Particularly in the case of a third-party (non-director) guarantor? Having a PG to provide recourse to other assets in the event of business bankruptcy is, of course, the entire point of a PG. A personal guarantee of the loan to the business. It's far from uncommon in the "real world" - many moons ago, I used to work for a smaller business which did end up closing. The directors had PG'd most of the borrowing - car leases, computer leases etc - and it cost them DEARLY. Tens of thousands each. The lender can take the guarantor to court to enforce the debt, in the same way as if the guarantor themselves was the borrower. Comments in some of the FC defaulted loans shows that it can and does work. Take 6521 as an example... It's not foolproof, of course. Take 9926:
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Oct 3, 2016 10:24:29 GMT
The asset would be taken back off the friend or relative by the creditors as you can't transfer assets to the detriment of creditors. I am glad you raised this response. The problem from a lender perspective is will the P2P platform actually chase the asset. It is particularly relevant to Rebuilding Society who can not be bothered to follow the procedure in the case of H**** I******** S*******. The borrower stated that they owned 3 properties with net equity of more than 10 times the loan amount. They borrowed against a business which they sold midway through the loan, and then defaulted. ReBs aren't pursuing the assets. It's a shambles.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Oct 3, 2016 11:16:43 GMT
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Oct 3, 2016 12:31:47 GMT
Given we're posting cases from FC, here's one that involves the asset transfer move:
"11 Aug 2016
The loan guarantor who owned property proposed a full and final settlement which would see less than 40% of the loan repaid. This was rejected on the basis that we do not accept debt write off on behalf of loan investors. We reiterated to the loan guarantor that we require a repayment plan that will see the debt repaid in full over a period of time and informed him that a lump sum payment could be accepted if proposed together with a repayment plan to settle the residual balance in monthly instalments and a charge over his jointly owned property if payments were less than 50% of the contractual monthly amount in value. We provided the loan guarantor until 17 June to revert on this proposal. The loan guarantor failed to respond and, given the matter has stalled on numerous occasions, we applied to court for judgment in default against him on 21 June 2016 to enable us to obtain a legal charge over his property by way of court order. Judgment was obtained on 7 July 2016, however we received contact from the loan guarantor in late June to advise that his property had been sold, his spouse had taken possession of the proceeds and they were now living separately. His spouse has purchased a new property with the equity generated from the joint property sale and the loan guarantor is currently in rental accommodation. At no point during negotiations did the guarantor advise that his jointly owned property was advertised for sale or that a buyer had been found. The guarantor claims that he held no financial interest in the property and his wife held a claim to the equity in its entirety as a result of her settling a number of business loans/expenses for which he was liable. However, at the Land Registry, both the guarantor and his wife are registered as the joint (i.e. 50/50) proprietors of the property. We have therefore informed the guarantor that the payment of the full balance of the equity from the sale of the legally jointly owned property to his spouse constitutes either a preference payment or transaction at an undervalue as it has put funds (i.e. 50% of the sale proceeds) which he is legally entitled to out of the reach of his creditors. We advised that, unless he is in a position to settle the debt in full, we will be petitioning for his bankruptcy in order that a Trustee in Bankruptcy can be appointed to investigate his actions and also to potentially challenge the transaction to secure funds for distribution to his creditors. We have issued a statutory demand on the guarantor as a legal prerequisite to bankruptcy proceedings and have not yet received a response, although the guarantor does have until the end of this month to make payment in full or respond with a suitable and agreeable payment plan. If we do not hear from him by the end of the month, we will be in a position to issue a bankruptcy petition for service on the loan guarantor. We have also recently issued a petition on the co-guarantor and await confirmation of the date of the bankruptcy hearing from the court."
In other words, nice try but no cigar for the borrower.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,035
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 3, 2016 13:59:14 GMT
Given we're posting cases from FC, here's one that involves the asset transfer move: "11 Aug 2016 The loan guarantor who owned property proposed a full and final settlement which would see less than 40% of the loan repaid. This was rejected on the basis that we do not accept debt write off on behalf of loan investors. We reiterated to the loan guarantor that we require a repayment plan that will see the debt repaid in full over a period of time and informed him that a lump sum payment could be accepted if proposed together with a repayment plan to settle the residual balance in monthly instalments and a charge over his jointly owned property if payments were less than 50% of the contractual monthly amount in value. We provided the loan guarantor until 17 June to revert on this proposal. The loan guarantor failed to respond and, given the matter has stalled on numerous occasions, we applied to court for judgment in default against him on 21 June 2016 to enable us to obtain a legal charge over his property by way of court order. Judgment was obtained on 7 July 2016, however we received contact from the loan guarantor in late June to advise that his property had been sold, his spouse had taken possession of the proceeds and they were now living separately. His spouse has purchased a new property with the equity generated from the joint property sale and the loan guarantor is currently in rental accommodation. At no point during negotiations did the guarantor advise that his jointly owned property was advertised for sale or that a buyer had been found. The guarantor claims that he held no financial interest in the property and his wife held a claim to the equity in its entirety as a result of her settling a number of business loans/expenses for which he was liable. However, at the Land Registry, both the guarantor and his wife are registered as the joint (i.e. 50/50) proprietors of the property. We have therefore informed the guarantor that the payment of the full balance of the equity from the sale of the legally jointly owned property to his spouse constitutes either a preference payment or transaction at an undervalue as it has put funds (i.e. 50% of the sale proceeds) which he is legally entitled to out of the reach of his creditors. We advised that, unless he is in a position to settle the debt in full, we will be petitioning for his bankruptcy in order that a Trustee in Bankruptcy can be appointed to investigate his actions and also to potentially challenge the transaction to secure funds for distribution to his creditors. We have issued a statutory demand on the guarantor as a legal prerequisite to bankruptcy proceedings and have not yet received a response, although the guarantor does have until the end of this month to make payment in full or respond with a suitable and agreeable payment plan. If we do not hear from him by the end of the month, we will be in a position to issue a bankruptcy petition for service on the loan guarantor. We have also recently issued a petition on the co-guarantor and await confirmation of the date of the bankruptcy hearing from the court." In other words, nice try but no cigar for the borrower. I guess that one's still playing out, so a court could still see the borrower's side?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Oct 3, 2016 14:04:13 GMT
Where any of these are still to come to a conclusion I'd be cautious about posting too much information.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Oct 3, 2016 14:30:41 GMT
Given we're posting cases from FC, here's one that involves the asset transfer move: "11 Aug 2016 The loan guarantor who owned property proposed a full and final settlement which would see less than 40% of the loan repaid. This was rejected on the basis that we do not accept debt write off on behalf of loan investors. We reiterated to the loan guarantor that we require a repayment plan that will see the debt repaid in full over a period of time and informed him that a lump sum payment could be accepted if proposed together with a repayment plan to settle the residual balance in monthly instalments and a charge over his jointly owned property if payments were less than 50% of the contractual monthly amount in value. We provided the loan guarantor until 17 June to revert on this proposal. The loan guarantor failed to respond and, given the matter has stalled on numerous occasions, we applied to court for judgment in default against him on 21 June 2016 to enable us to obtain a legal charge over his property by way of court order. Judgment was obtained on 7 July 2016, however we received contact from the loan guarantor in late June to advise that his property had been sold, his spouse had taken possession of the proceeds and they were now living separately. His spouse has purchased a new property with the equity generated from the joint property sale and the loan guarantor is currently in rental accommodation. At no point during negotiations did the guarantor advise that his jointly owned property was advertised for sale or that a buyer had been found. The guarantor claims that he held no financial interest in the property and his wife held a claim to the equity in its entirety as a result of her settling a number of business loans/expenses for which he was liable. However, at the Land Registry, both the guarantor and his wife are registered as the joint (i.e. 50/50) proprietors of the property. We have therefore informed the guarantor that the payment of the full balance of the equity from the sale of the legally jointly owned property to his spouse constitutes either a preference payment or transaction at an undervalue as it has put funds (i.e. 50% of the sale proceeds) which he is legally entitled to out of the reach of his creditors. We advised that, unless he is in a position to settle the debt in full, we will be petitioning for his bankruptcy in order that a Trustee in Bankruptcy can be appointed to investigate his actions and also to potentially challenge the transaction to secure funds for distribution to his creditors. We have issued a statutory demand on the guarantor as a legal prerequisite to bankruptcy proceedings and have not yet received a response, although the guarantor does have until the end of this month to make payment in full or respond with a suitable and agreeable payment plan. If we do not hear from him by the end of the month, we will be in a position to issue a bankruptcy petition for service on the loan guarantor. We have also recently issued a petition on the co-guarantor and await confirmation of the date of the bankruptcy hearing from the court." In other words, nice try but no cigar for the borrower. Thanks quidco. This anecdote is illustrative (to me) 'cos it doesn't make any mention of a business. It describes action against an individual (not a business), irrespective of how the money came to be due. And it is a Trustee in Bankruptcy who is appointed to do the chasing.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,035
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 3, 2016 15:13:09 GMT
Thanks quidco. This anecdote is illustrative (to me) 'cos it doesn't make any mention of a business. It describes action against an individual (not a business), irrespective of how the money came to be due. And it is a Trustee in Bankruptcy who is appointed to do the chasing. The business will already have default and closed, hence FC going to the guarantor. The TiB is being mentioned because the guarantor says he doesn't have the money to stand by his legally owed debts.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 3, 2016 15:16:16 GMT
Put simply "The piece of paper that a PG is written on, is about as useful as toilet paper" Remember that and you won't go far wrong. A little more exactly: "The piece of paper that a personal guarantee is written on, is useful as toilet paper". A personal guarantee is usually full of holes when it comes to being enforced. I don't like toilet paper with holes in it.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Oct 3, 2016 16:01:06 GMT
What is the opinion of the P2P members of having more than one person offering a PG to underwrite the same loan. I place twice as much faith in two guarantors, and more than thrice as much faith in three guarantors. I reckon that, with multiple guarantors, it becomes far more awkward to squirrel assets away before the fateful day. I can imagine discussions between the guarantors, each urging the other(s) to be the first to liquidate their house. And if there is anything naughty considered, then it becomes much more disadvantageous for two or three to conspire to carry out such naughtiness.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,035
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 3, 2016 17:27:17 GMT
opinions though appear a little divided Simple, and very short answer... PGs can have value, and they ARE legally enforceable. But that doesn't mean the guarantor has the money.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,035
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 3, 2016 18:05:13 GMT
and therein lies the insidious difficulty for many, especially for those like you and I who may wish it were otherwise...would you agree? So it all comes back to the usual question. Do you trust the platform?If not, why are you giving them your money in the first place?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,035
Likes: 5,154
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 3, 2016 18:36:20 GMT
a very good question and one to be married to an equally good answer, one long since answered in the plural. So there y'go. You trust them to do the basic DD over things like this correctly.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Oct 4, 2016 7:50:12 GMT
What is the opinion of the P2P members of having more than one person offering a PG to underwrite the same loan. I place twice as much faith in two guarantors, and more than thrice as much faith in three guarantors. I reckon that, with multiple guarantors, it becomes far more awkward to squirrel assets away before the fateful day. I can imagine discussions between the guarantors, each urging the other(s) to be the first to liquidate their house. And if there is anything naughty considered, then it becomes much more disadvantageous for two or three to conspire to carry out such naughtiness. A former company I worked with had a strong negligence claim for a large amount against a large professional services general partnership. It appeared that they did not have sufficient PI insurance to cover our claim so would need to recover the damages from the partners. In the end the leading barrister advised that we should win the case to go after the personal assets of the partners, but should not expect to cover the costs of recovery as the partners would have few personal assets to seize! Not exactly the same as, absent our claim, the partnership was solvent (most professional service partners have huge net liabilities if you exclude any value for their goodwill), so difficult to prove their financial affairs were set up to avoid paying creditors and these arrangements are likely to have been made when they first became equity partners.
Where the standing of a few people is wrapped up in a business, being able to make them bankrupt often acts as a deterrent to imprudent deals, but when there are many, it becomes anonymized, largely (in the words of Milton Friedman "Other Peoples Money") and hence has a lower impact. Often a businesses debts are many times the personal wealth of the controlling directors, so recoveries from enforcing PGs will rarely cover the net liabilities in difficulties. It is the personal threat to stop them walking away that provides most of the value.
- PM
|
|