averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188 
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Jul 11, 2019 13:57:25 GMT
companies house, search first word of building name with co attached. Am I missing something here? 7.073M to Lendy as interm re-payment, ignoring bonus and interest payments, the loan value is currently 10.7M so surely that means that > 50% of capital should be repayed to investors pretty soon? That still means a large capital loss ...no interest having been paid out for quite some time and people a tad annoyed that unsecured creditors (flat owners) doing significantly better,, if i’m reading the general mood correctly
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Jul 11, 2019 14:28:37 GMT
Am I missing something here? 7.073M to Lendy as interm re-payment, ignoring bonus and interest payments, the loan value is currently 10.7M so surely that means that > 50% of capital should be repayed to investors pretty soon? That still means a large capital loss ...no interest having been paid out for quite some time and people a tad annoyed that unsecured creditors (flat owners) doing significantly better,, if i’m reading the general mood correctly You are. I would love to see if the confidential report to the Insolvency Service provides evidence of the likely fraud that has been perpetrated on us? On the plus side I’m hoping that the Administrators cut is far less than Lendy were planning to take, so our recovery is higher. End result - still not happy.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Jul 11, 2019 15:10:09 GMT
i dont know if i am coming or going anymore with this p2p game.we invest/lend in first charge secured loans and end up bottom of the list when it comes to the crunch.are we secured creditors or are we unsecured creditors or are we something else.loans at 70%max ltv so in the event of default there should be enough security to repay capital at least.i think that is the theory of the whole thing to get us to part with our money. LIAM and his crew really showed how a platform and THEIR borrowers could screw the system with FS hot on the heels the way things are going.MT once the favourite of many for their openness and comms has now become stagnent and boring and silent.i personally feel it is only a matter of time before a few more throw the towel in and do a LIAM/LENDY making sure they have covered their ar*es on the way out.none of them give a sh*t about lenders/investors and are proving that day after day with their incompetance/ignorance and total contempt towards all of us.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 538
Likes: 385
Member is Online
|
Post by toffeeboy on Jul 11, 2019 15:24:26 GMT
So this is my understanding of this. The original investors have now repurchased the leasehold of the property from the company for 7.45 of which we are expecting to get just over 7 million so just over 65% of our capital will be received.
The original investors however have got the leasehold which is valued at, when completed, £23 million for which they paid the 7.45 and the 7.47 which is the value that the unsecured creditors reduced by supposedly their original investment.
This sounds suspicious to me based on the fact that if the leasehold was sold to anyone other than the investors then they wouldn't have received a penny until all of our capital and interest was returned.
Happy to be corrected by those who understand these things better than me.
|
|
zccax77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 82
Likes: 76
|
Post by zccax77 on Jul 12, 2019 12:52:53 GMT
The way this loan has been handled is disgusting. Never again. More luck with a Nigerian Prince than Development p2p.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jul 12, 2019 14:05:02 GMT
So this is my understanding of this. The original investors have now repurchased the leasehold of the property from the company for 7.45 of which we are expecting to get just over 7 million so just over 65% of our capital will be received.
The original investors however have got the leasehold which is valued at, when completed, £23 million for which they paid the 7.45 and the 7.47 which is the value that the unsecured creditors reduced by supposedly their original investment.
This sounds suspicious to me based on the fact that if the leasehold was sold to anyone other than the investors then they wouldn't have received a penny until all of our capital and interest was returned.
Happy to be corrected by those who understand these things better than me. That is how I understand it with Lendy attempting to cover itself from any accusation that it had 'sold' the property for less than full and fair market value. The lawyers for those heavily invested in this property and the Administrators will both go over the paperwork with a fine tooth comb.
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Jul 14, 2019 12:24:46 GMT
The issue here is not the quantum of the recovery for secured creditors. The value of 65% is simply the outturn from the process. Nor should it be the administrators costs. They forecast £179k and it was £306k. Administrations take an inordinate amount of time and, as a result cost money. The additional £126k in fees has depressed the recovery by just 1%.
The issue, as locutus , has mentioned, is that the precedence for recovery in the capital structure has not followed the usual course. Some unsecured creditors have recovered better than secured creditors, possibly it seems through a process of novating their claims to another company. So we are left wondering what shenanigans have occured to allow that to happen. The fact Lendy had the freehold, the original borrowers buying back in at a lower value and whether Lendy needed a rapid firesale to generate the necessary cashflow to keep the company afloat. It smells like many a pre-pack. Only in a pre-pack it's normally the equity investors that get shafted to benefit the creditors. Here is seems the equity investors and unsecured creditors have shafted the secured creditors.
On the positive side I had the £1k in this loan marked down at a 20% recovery (this representing my confidence in the average recovery of Lendy loans) so technically this is a gain ...
|
|
jomantha
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 63
|
Post by jomantha on Jul 14, 2019 20:17:30 GMT
are we really going to get any of our money back - can it just be co-join to anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Jul 16, 2019 11:26:38 GMT
we now know how much HQ sold for 63% of loan
this sum will be subject to
deduction of fees and costs as calculated by the waterfall
wonder if this is the ballpark figure RSM are looking at for 57% recovery?
|
|
|
|
Post by mot on Jul 16, 2019 11:49:33 GMT
I wonder when we’ll get that? I believe “shortly” was the term used on the 8th !
|
|
withnell
Member of DD Central
Posts: 550
Likes: 491
|
Post by withnell on Jul 16, 2019 13:00:30 GMT
Has anyone actually seen this waterfall? In the absence of a published chart of figures, or value/% details in the documentation, how was a lender to know the scale of Lendy's charges? The only thing published to my knowledge was the 12% headline rate and the bonus interest ("paid in preference to Lendy's share of margins and fees") Monetus - don't know if this avenue has been raised with LAG, would this not constitute an unfair contract where Lenders were not provided with sufficient information? |
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jul 16, 2019 13:53:39 GMT
Monetus - don't know if this avenue has been raised with LAG, would this not constitute an unfair contract where Lenders were not provided with sufficient information? It's worth reading section 13.3 of the platform terms located here (https://lendy.co.uk/terms) in regards to the "waterfall" I can assure you this is a matter of extreme interest for LAG and one that has been raised with RSM on numerous occasions. In fact it's one of the core polices of our group. Copied from our site: POSITION 3. MODEL 2 TERMS – (36H COMPLIANT) AND VARIATIONS – MODEL 2A.
LAG is aware that in early 2016 Lendy introduced new lender terms which were Article 36H compliant (ie true P2P loans). The terms were revised frequently with little material effect as far as we are presently aware until March 5th 2018. We refer to all these versions as Model 2 terms.
On March 5th 2018 (and further amended on July 11th 2018), Lendy introduced several post-contractual material changes to the Model 2 terms which substantially reduced Lendy’s obligations to lenders while increasing Lendy's priority and ability to take excessive fees from loan recoveries.
These changes put Lendy’s business model in direct conflict with the interests of investors by allowing their “fees and commission” to rank ahead of investor capital, thus creating a ‘waterfall’ to lenders detriment. We refer to all these versions as Model 2A terms.
These terms also irrevocably appoint Lendy / SSSH as agent / trustee meaning that as an investor, you are unable to remove Lendy as agent under any circumstances.
Lendy attempted to retrospectively apply these Model 2A terms to all loan parts that lenders invested in prior to March 5th 2018 without gaining the specific consent or agreement of Lendy investors. LAG consider the Model 2A terms unfair, detrimental and likely unenforceable.LAG put the administration on notice that many lenders took advantage of clause 24.1 and informed Lendy that they refused retrospective application of these terms. LAG’s position is that all loan parts invested in prior to 5th March 2018 should have the appropriate terms apply to them that were in place when the loan was originally promoted on the Lendy platform.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jul 16, 2019 14:34:21 GMT
As already mentioned a couple of posts ago, Lendy's currently-live description of the "bonus accrual" feature at lendy.co.uk/bonus-accrualclearly states that "This is paid in preference to Lendy's share of margins and fees."
It seems to me that Investors who invested money at any time that description was live (and as it is still live today, that covers most of us!) are entitled to rely on this, and if there are any loans where the bonus interest has not yet been paid, Lendy's share of margins and fees will be zero.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Jul 16, 2019 14:50:53 GMT
As already mentioned a couple of posts ago, Lendy's currently-live description of the "bonus accrual" feature at lendy.co.uk/bonus-accrualclearly states that "This is paid in preference to Lendy's share of margins and fees."
It seems to me that Investors who invested money at any time that description was live (and as it is still live today, that covers most of us!) are entitled to rely on this, and if there are any loans where the bonus interest has not yet been paid, Lendy's share of margins and fees will be zero.
Good reasoning. Obviously, the Administrators fees, which now also include running the platform and staff, will have to come from somewhere, so I expect a moderate fee will be applied to all recoveries to pay for this. This cannot, in my view, be increased to provide any recovery for unsecured creditors from our Capital.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,333
Likes: 11,557
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 16, 2019 15:28:08 GMT
As already mentioned a couple of posts ago, Lendy's currently-live description of the "bonus accrual" feature at lendy.co.uk/bonus-accrualclearly states that "This is paid in preference to Lendy's share of margins and fees."
It seems to me that Investors who invested money at any time that description was live (and as it is still live today, that covers most of us!) are entitled to rely on this, and if there are any loans where the bonus interest has not yet been paid, Lendy's share of margins and fees will be zero.
Dont forget the Collections & Recovery policy issued in April 2018 after the new t&cs
1. Capital (loan) amount
2. Interest accrued
3. Bonus accrual
Lendy will only take any portion of interest or fees owing to them once all of the above have been satisfied. Only once each tier has been fully satisfied will funds be put toward the next. E.g. the whole capital amount must be paid before funds are put towards interest accrued, and all interest accrued must be paid before funds are put towards bonus accrual.
This remained in force until amended in late 2018.
|
|
