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 Oct 16, 2021 15:40:28 GMT
Nothing in DDC - is it from Another Place? <edit> Nope, tumbleweed central over there. Usual court source
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,049
Likes: 4,438
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 16, 2021 16:48:55 GMT
It's from a post I made on FB:
Potential bad news for the circa 3000 members of the public who crowd-funded the loan on failed P2P platform Lendy as indication given they will be joined to the claim, which is said to include £7m in lost profit
The borrowing companies director filed a counter-claim which included inter alia: "As a result of Lendy’s misrepresentation and/or negligence (and/or the said Lenders’ breach of contract), [Borrower] suffered extensive loss and damage. In November 2018, the Project was estimated by strategic corporate finance consultants, [redacted], to have a gross development value of £13 million with a net anticipated profit of £7 million. [Borrower] would set-off/counterclaim (joining the said Lenders, who would no doubt, in turn, add Lendy as Defendant to that counterclaim)"
Dream on. Another chancer.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 16, 2021 16:51:34 GMT
Let's hope it gets kicked out before certain other borrowers decide this is a bandwagon to jump on...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,049
Likes: 4,438
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 16, 2021 18:02:24 GMT
Let's hope it gets kicked out before certain other borrowers decide this is a bandwagon to jump on... Who have you been lending your money to?
|
|
jhamster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 107
Likes: 145
|
Post by jhamster on Oct 17, 2021 14:42:38 GMT
I would have thought that the recent court outcome for M2 investors also makes clear that the borrower is free to sue Lendy's estate as unsecured creditors if they wish, but that funds lent and returned belong to investors who were never under any obligation to lend any further monies.
Seems like he's going to find that out the hard way, at his own expense.
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Oct 18, 2021 19:10:18 GMT
I would have thought that the recent court outcome for M2 investors also makes clear that the borrower is free to sue Lendy's estate as unsecured creditors if they wish, but that funds lent and returned belong to investors who were never under any obligation to lend any further monies. Seems like he's going to find that out the hard way, at his own expense. He probably assumed that his legal representative would volunteer that useful bit of information (the court outcome). Of course that's a daft assumption to make considering that by keeping quiet, his legal representative can rinse him for yet another wedge. Gotta laugh 
|
|
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 Oct 18, 2021 19:25:41 GMT
I would have thought that the recent court outcome for M2 investors also makes clear that the borrower is free to sue Lendy's estate as unsecured creditors if they wish, but that funds lent and returned belong to investors who were never under any obligation to lend any further monies. Seems like he's going to find that out the hard way, at his own expense. He probably assumed that his legal representative would volunteer that useful bit of information (the court outcome). Of course that's a daft assumption to make considering that by keeping quiet, his legal representative can rinse him for yet another wedge. Gotta laugh He is well aware of the court ruling. Whether lenders were obligated to lend further will likely be one of the subjects of the case, as with the previous borrower action. I would make no assumptions where Lendy & their lawyers are involved in drawing up contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by base on Oct 19, 2021 16:44:32 GMT
Could this also include lenders who sold their loan part when things were operating normally?
I assume the 3000 lenders only include lenders who had loan parts when this loan defaulted?
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Oct 19, 2021 17:10:31 GMT
He probably assumed that his legal representative would volunteer that useful bit of information (the court outcome). Of course that's a daft assumption to make considering that by keeping quiet, his legal representative can rinse him for yet another wedge. Gotta laugh He is well aware of the court ruling. Whether lenders were obligated to lend further will likely be one of the subjects of the case, as with the previous borrower action. I would make no assumptions where Lendy & their lawyers are involved in drawing up contracts. Nowhere was a term communicated to me that I was obligated to lend further. If by pure miracle, it was mentioned on some font size 4 light grey on white text, then it wouldn't be enforceable under consumer law anyway. The borrower probably assumed that his legal representative would volunteer those useful bits of information, but by keeping quiet they can rinse him for yet another wedge 
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Oct 20, 2021 8:53:28 GMT
It seems improbable the borrower has a claim but as it’s got to court they must have an arguable case.
Lendy should have made it crystal clear whether they undertook responsibility for further tranches, and if it was dependent on proper performance etc. Did they make it clear?
Borrower should have asked.
They are both ‘professionals’ (sic)
Lenders are not. The FCA must at some stage stop burying their heads.
If a lender states they are vulnerable / at risk if stressed, the Counter Claimant (borrower) MUST back off, or risk a counter-counter claim.
Although I'm fortunately not in Lendy, I was mugged by the crooks at FS. Is Lendy the only incompetent ex-platform that is liable to these counter claims?
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2021 9:47:48 GMT
Looks like another session of trawling through Lendy T&Cs. tbh, I've found the court cases so far (including the 5-day Model 1 vs Model 2 'show trial') quite fascinating.
15.5 We do not guarantee that loans will be fully funded.
Although this is directed at Lenders, this does have an interesting implication - if Lenders were under any kind of obligation to fill loans, then Lendy *WOULD* in effect be guaranteeing that loans are fully funded. But Lendy are explicitly stating there are no such guarantees. Hmmm.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 20, 2021 10:17:21 GMT
It seems improbable the borrower has a claim but as it’s got to court they must have an arguable case. Lendy should have made it crystal clear whether they undertook responsibility for further tranches, and if it was dependent on proper performance etc. Did they make it clear? Borrower should have asked. They are both ‘professionals’ (sic) Lenders are not. The FCA must at some stage stop burying their heads. If a lender states they are vulnerable / at risk if stressed, the Counter Claimant (borrower) MUST back off, or risk a counter-counter claim. I think you might be forgetting the lender's self-certification of being a "sophisticated investor".
|
|
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 Oct 20, 2021 10:39:42 GMT
It seems improbable the borrower has a claim but as it’s got to court they must have an arguable case. Lendy should have made it crystal clear whether they undertook responsibility for further tranches, and if it was dependent on proper performance etc. Did they make it clear? Borrower should have asked. They are both ‘professionals’ (sic) Lenders are not. The FCA must at some stage stop burying their heads. If a lender states they are vulnerable / at risk if stressed, the Counter Claimant (borrower) MUST back off, or risk a counter-counter claim. I think you might be forgetting the lender's self-certification of being a "sophisticated investor". Assuming they so certified rather than restricted. The other small problem is that lenders didnt see the contract so can only go on the basis that it is peer to peer lending which means a micro loan as part of larger loan without further commitment. I do wonder if the counter-claimant actually understands what P2P is? However, it will be for the courts to determine whether there is an arguable case.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 20, 2021 10:50:42 GMT
I do wonder if the counter-claimant actually understands what P2P is? Oh, I'm sure they do. They're just flailing to try to minimise their actual losses.
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Oct 20, 2021 13:14:38 GMT
Even a ‘sophisticated’ investor would not be expected to have the same level of expertise as the directors of a p2p, they are self declaring, are not differentiated from restricted and anyway those classifications only came AFTER the horse had bolted (i.e. horse poo hit fan).
As Luxmore said in another place, small investors are less likely to do proper due diligence.......
|
|
