DFL019 - Phase 1, Land at R***** Leisure Village - SUSPENDED

I've always struggled to get a read on Lendys thinking over the years. Hopefully they are going through the process, the borrower has a proposal and they therefore need to consider it. They have some feedback and can now use that. I would recommend lenders make direct contact to make their feedback formal.

I can't see how they could progress such an option as it really opens themselves up. Has a new valuation been instructed, has long term finance been secured based on that valuation once the build is complete. Or is it all wishful thinking.

There has to be evidence that any change to the loan is in the best interests of lenders.

Lendy Support

Contract term 9.4 says 'All repayments and any interest received that is due to you will be paid to your Lendy lender account monthly in arrears.'

Despite the understandable uproar over this, what is being proposed (given the mess) makes total sense - although as ever the devil will be in the detail which we are unlikely to ever see. The options seem to be:

1. Continue funding the development (Lendy clearly unable to do so)
   
2. Appoint a receiver (if that is even valid - I suspect it isn't) to take control and sell. A substantial haircut of ~ 50% will follow but more importantly B would inevitably sue for all losses incurred directly caused by Ly failure to fund - and any sale proceeds left will probably be sat in a court escrow account for years - and by the end of that probably 10p in the £ may get returned. 

3. Allow a new lender to fund the remainder of the costs  (no lawsuit from B, no immediate haircut, and it is even possible a full capital recovery will happen as after all B will need to see to that to get their hands on any profits which will only materialize if the second charge is paid in full). 

 
     
 
 
 

I'm not in the London loan but sadly am in this mess. Are any of said collective lawyers I wonder? The borrower and their legal team clearly believe they have a case and the fact that as I understand it an initial hearing has to some extent gone the way of that borrower suggests to my (non legal) brain that their case is at least not frivolous.

I should add that from our perspective as investors, the idea that you can invest in something fully regulated by the FCA and then lose more than your initial investment is simply astounding and I hope the highers powers that be (such as the FCA) do something about it.

Unfortunately i'm in this loan and am very unhappy with the way it's going.
Just to add something positive... Superficially, this might just appear to be a few huts in a field, but they are located just on the edge of a beautiful National Park, in an area which thrives on tourism. If the project were to be successfully completed, it is in the right place and could well be a viable business venture, providing it's managed and marketed well. Alternatively, there could be larger leisure companies who would be prepared to take over the project, which is still at a stage where they could stamp their own identity on it. Sure, this doesn't mean we will come out of it without a haircut, but I don't yet see it as a total write off. 

Doesn't really address the elephant in the room - what is the way forward for this, and whether the objections have been noted.

I can't quite fathom how we have regulations that prohibit Lendy making an interest payment to lenders in this situation, but presumably the same regulations allow Lendy to change loan holders security from a first charge to a second charge without their consent. 

I do not believe for a second that most enquiries from lenders was about a month's missing interest but then Lendy doing the decent thing went away a long time ago.