SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 25, 2024 12:41:47 GMT
Why did the lower priority development loan tranches receive capital repayment before the 1st ranking loan received its interest in full? That’s not how I recall FS loans working (though it was a long time since I had one repay)
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jan 25, 2024 13:52:54 GMT
Why did the lower priority development loan tranches receive capital repayment before the 1st ranking loan received its interest in full? That’s not how I recall FS loans working (though it was a long time since I had one repay) Because the interest stopped when the property was sold, at least that is what I was led to believe. While not wishing to appear greedy, it seems to me that this was a pretty arbitrary decision when the lenders had not been repaid and interest was accruing on the website, and when the administrators were pocketing the interest from the bank for 3 years! My reading of the loan says that I continued to accrue interest at the expense of lower ranking loans until I was repaid, not FS administrators receiving funds. But then I'm no lawyer, but on the other hand the administrators don't appear to be either.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 25, 2024 15:16:05 GMT
Why did the lower priority development loan tranches receive capital repayment before the 1st ranking loan received its interest in full? That’s not how I recall FS loans working (though it was a long time since I had one repay) Because the interest stopped when the property was sold, at least that is what I was led to believe. While not wishing to appear greedy, it seems to me that this was a pretty arbitrary decision when the lenders had not been repaid and interest was accruing on the website, and when the administrators were pocketing the interest from the bank for 3 years! My reading of the loan says that I continued to accrue interest at the expense of lower ranking loans until I was repaid, not FS administrators receiving funds. But then I'm no lawyer, but on the other hand the administrators don't appear to be either. Confirmation received from the Administrators: Loan 2938283517 received its interest in full due up to the date the property was sold 24/07/2020, once sold the interest is stopped at that point, I know the platform continues shows interest accruing and this can not be adjusted. The tranches ranking behind then received funds apportioned after the full capital and interest up to 24/07/20 was repaid to loan 2938283517.
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Jan 25, 2024 16:45:39 GMT
Anyone know what date withdrawals are being processed? It used to be fortnightly on a Wednesday but it's so long since any payments have been made perhaps this has changed?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 25, 2024 16:58:23 GMT
call me thick and many people do but can somebody please clarify the below for me
receiver costs 25 K - fair enough
but cg fees - 32K - just what the hell have they done for this - as I see it all they have done is submitted a claim against a charge ? expense contribution 59K - what exactly was this and who to? idemmnity 88K - how bloody much ! again what exactly was this ?
we were given various values for this building up - I think uo to 7M and the sold it for 1.3m does anybody know who bought it
I thank you
|
|
|
Post by scotty on Jan 25, 2024 18:53:30 GMT
Anyone know what date withdrawals are being processed? It used to be fortnightly on a Wednesday but it's so long since any payments have been made perhaps this has changed? I was told earlier today that withdrawals will be processed next Tuesday, 30/1/24.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,886
Likes: 11,109
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 25, 2024 20:20:29 GMT
AIUI Interest stops accruing at the point of sale because that is when the debt ceases to be due from the borrower ... it has been discharged as far as it can by the sale of the security. Remember in this case, there was only a fixed charge, not a debenture ... had there been the interest may well have continued to be payable up until the point the floating charge was crystalised. Guarantees are separate as they are outside the direct lending contract so interest doesnt accrue while they are being pursued. I can see that FS total debt against the company across the various loans £7.6m, not sure if this is after the security realisations, nothing further recovered anyway.
As to fees etc ... not in the loan so cant see the actual breakdown ...
£32k - straightforward agreed 2.5% of recovery, bit more to it than just issuing a claim, all the time taking liaising with receivers, legal bits FS has to do £59k - FS costs involved in the recovery ... in a receivership a lot of the costs are actually paid by the charge holder not the office holder it seems ... but also some contribution to the costs of maintaining the platform etc ... its pretty low compared to other platform administrations £88k - I think this is a pot of money being retained in case there is any challenge to the legal advice received by CG that has allowed them to distribute funds while the QT case is ongoing
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 25, 2024 22:39:43 GMT
thanks for your reply - the receivers also got £25K and there was a further 26K in legal and professional fees
ref this 88K - seems a lot to me especially if it is an insurance premium
in my business one believe me I numerous people try it on but I personally vet all invoices and don't pay if not pre-agreed - my point is I really don't like being presented with a list of expenses without a detailed explanation
Also is there a audit trail for our millions - I bloody wonder
This QT nonsense strikes me as a scam by a professional "paper shuffler" not what I first wanted to type!
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 2,451
|
Post by iRobot on Jan 26, 2024 10:05:46 GMT
ref this 88K - seems a lot to me especially if it is an insurance premiumNot an 'insurance premium', hopefully. Premiums tend to be a non-refundable payment, whereas 'retained' monies can be returned if not needed. FS / CG&Co did 'complete' another loan (a Birkenhead one) on the same day as this one. The breakdown on that one carries the following note on the 'Indemnity sum' (also 7.5%): "This is a sum to enable certain funds to be moved at this stage"Well, that's nice then. Would it be too much trouble to explain which funds and for who's benefit? Is it a short term situation? Or has it been removed from the table (from the loans' lenders perspective) permanently? [Both loans are now in the 'Investment history' tab; had they been tied to the QT case and there was a possibility these 'Indemnity sums' may be returned, I might have expected them to appear in the 'Funds Pending Quistclose' tab.]
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 26, 2024 14:23:49 GMT
Not an 'insurance premium', hopefully. Premiums tend to be a non-refundable payment, whereas 'retained' monies can be returned if not needed
Believe it or not I do actually realise that and that is why I typed "if"
My point is I am not happy with this lot simply presenting us with large expenses with ,as far as I can see very little explanation, and would like a detailed breakdown
As I said looks to me as if this Quistclose rubbish is a cheap trick and FS should never have fallen for it (of course there are other explanations!)
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Jan 28, 2024 13:02:05 GMT
| Tranches | Amount | Capital | Interest | Tranche | Ref | Loan | Returned | Returned | Main | 2938283517 | 575,000.00 | 575,000.00 | 229,252.08 | 1 | 2637081380 | 156,250.00 | 19,617.04 | - | 2 | 4082868284 | 200,000.00 | 25,109.31 | - | 3 | 3247366922 | 239,000.00 | 30,006.22 | - | 4 | 1166384406 | 210,000.00 | 26,365.30 | - | 5 | 1433336004 | 220,000.00 | 27,620.79 | - | 6 | 8396173082 | 100,000.00 | 12,554.90 | - | 7 | 3265526729 | 150,000.00 | 18,832.36 | - | 8 | 4202361543 | 224,750.00 | 28,217.15 | - |
Main loan holders received about 40% interest for their time and trouble. Tranche holders realised an 87% capital loss and the Supplemental holders 100% loss. FSL / CG&Co direct costs: CG Fees 2.5% +VAT £ 35,239.37 Expense Contribution* £ 58,732.29 Indemnity Sum ** £ 88,098.43 Total £ 182,070.09
These fees represent 16% of the realised sum after sales costs. In fact, they exceed the total costs of sale - Receivers, Agency, Legals etc, etc - by some £20k. Or, put another way, the Receivers responsible for disposing of the site on behalf of the Borrower Co and associated creditors, levied fees of £25k from the £1.3m sale. CG&Co's fees are 7-times that. I really don't know how how CG&Co can justify those fees. Feels to me that monies which should morally be finding their way back to lenders is funding the Administration to cover shortfalls elsewhere. (I'm none-the-wiser as to what the 'Expense Contribution' and 'Indemnity Sum' values are supposed to represent, maybe it'll become clear in the next report, although that isn't due until around May) The Interest on the Primary Loan was paid until the day the Property was Sold (24/07/20) - approx 35%, as there were Loan Bonuses.
The remaining Fund (£188,323.55) was distributed to the Remaining 8 Tranches (except the 2 Supplemental Funds, which had 0% Return). So, each of the other Tranches received 12.55% of their Capital returned.
CG Fees 2.5% +VAT £ 35,239.37 - This was already agreed
Expense Contribution* £ 58,732.29 - This was agreed with the CC (quietly, without any Discussions/Consensus/Voting or informing the Lenders)
Indemnity Sum ** £ 88,098.43 - This is just in case this Loan comes under the purview of the Quistclose - so, in theory, should be returned in Full to the Lenders (if not affected by the QT) ; however, ....... (I don't want to give ideas to the vultures).
However, the Primary Tranche Holders shouldn't get anything back from this as they were paid the Full Amounts back. The 8 Secondary Tranches should get this back £88,098.43/£1,500,000 = 5.87%.
Also, there was apparently an Exclusivity Fee of £25,000 recd (update on 12/02/20 - The exclusivity agreement was exchanged on 16 October and the Receivers solicitors are holding the exclusivity fee) which should have been retained when the 1st sale fell through. There is No Mention of this in the Final Figures ?
Also there is a mention of another Exclusivity Fee (09/09/20 update) - which has apparently been accounted for in the final Fee figure of £1.325M.
And, as always with every Recobery, I don't understand if anything can be done to the irrecoverable VAT figure (£20,701 in this case).
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 29, 2024 4:12:42 GMT
this £88K is one to watch - be interested to see where this finally ends up - I could guess... I really don't see what the hell is going on here and how this figure was arrived at - I mean £88K isn't much in legal fees when over £2m is at stake...are the creditors going to suddenly claim they are covered by QT - I really don't think so but I am no lawyer
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jan 29, 2024 11:39:07 GMT
3.5 years of interest on 1.3 million pounds, that's going to be a chunk of change that the administrators have apparently just pocketed, a little bonus. 5% per year compounded?
I understand that there is a clause allowing FS to stop all interest payments to lenders if the asset is sold, but this was surely meant to cover the interim period before the money was paid to lenders. Surely this was anticipated to cover days or maybe weeks for a functional company - not 3.5 years in administration?!
I'm pretty sure that no judge would uphold that as a fair term and condition in these circumstances.
Now, where's the judge?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 29, 2024 12:30:25 GMT
if we take simple interest at 4% - should be easy enough on such a large sum I make that 1,300,000 x 4/100 x 3.5 = £182K on simple interest alone - tasty!
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jan 29, 2024 12:46:09 GMT
if we take simple interest at 4% - should be easy enough on such a large sum I make that 1,300,000 x 4/100 x 3.5 = £182K on simple interest alone - tasty! Not much of an incentive to get this money back to its rightful owners, is it? In fact, given their clear purpose in life is to maximise their own income then this term is clearly not in the interests of the investors. Don't worry, I expect the FCA to leap to our defence at any moment, and point out that they fecked up by allowing this situation to arise in the first place. Probably. Not!
|
|