BL00046 - Darwen, Blackburn

EXISTING LOAN UPDATE

Morning,

The following loans are set to redeem or renew/extend from the 29th of January to the 4th of February..

31/01/2018 BB00574 - Renewal
01/02/2018 BB00667 - Renewal
02/02/2018 BL00046 - Redeeming (end of Feb)
02/02/2018 BB00668 - Renewal
03/02/2018 BB00577 - Renewal
03/02/2018 BB00578 - Redeem
03/02/2018 BB00579 - Renewal

Loans that are to be renewed will be listed from 9am with all redemptions for that day before 9am.

Note that this is the current indication from the borrowers but is of course subject to change.

Please remember if you wish to keep your investment in any of the none property loans which are to be renewed, make sure you have ticked Renew Investment in "My Loans".

This is my biggest exposure on COL (think I took it on because it ranked ahead of the development loans)

Not certain there is a lot I want to reinvest in

According to today's updates, the development tranches of this loan are to be refinanced elsewhere, but there is no mention of this first loan.

Is this first loan also being refinanced and if not, how will it be structured to protect the interests of the investors? Currently all development loans rank behind it. Can you clarify please?

Collateral Rep

Can somebody please do me a favour?

This loan was possible to repay at the end of the month.

Obviously, I hope this hasn't happened as then the money may be with collateral.

Can somebody please check if the first charge is still in place?

It may be the borrower knows more about what is going on than lenders.  But I am guessing the terms and conditions say not to contact borrowers.

Perhaps something to consider tomorrow if there hasn't been any further update from Col or elsewhere.

This loan hasn't repaid, there is no evidence at companies house to show it has.

It was originally intended that COL lenders would be financing the whole multi-million development through DL's but by late last year it was clear that COL's lenders wouldn't have deep enough pockets to fund the development of this and the related Burnley and Great Harwood developments. It is understood that the borrower started the process of finding a source of refinance for these loans at that point. It was left vague as to whether COL's lenders would be expected to fund further groundworks via a limited number of additional DL's pending the refinance, but in the event it seems no further groundworks were undertaken.

The length of time it takes to refinance a loan is pretty uncertain at the outset, and it would be have been unreasonable for any lender to expect any dates that may have been mentioned for such refinance completing to have been anything other than best guesses at the time they were mentioned based on what COL were being told by the borrower.

@leopardcat states in this post that when she talked to a COL director last Monday  "He also told me re the 3 Lancashire loans that he had seen evidence of the refunding, with HoT on 2 developments and that they were waiting for HoT on the 3rd which had been promised to be with them last week."

HoT = Head of Terms, and is normally taken to be an initial agreement between parties (in this case a new lender and our borrower) of the terms (e.g. rate, amount, term) and would be subject to acceptable valuation and detailed legal due dilligence.

It is therefore possible that the refinance of this and the two related loans is still at a relatively early stage in the process, and it may be wise to assume that there will be no redemption of this, or the related loans in the short term.


As I said on the related Great Harwood loan thread 2 days ago, it is really not appropriate to trouble the administrators with questions on individual loans at this stage. Their initial proposals document (due in 8 weeks time) will set out the framework for how things will unfold over the next few years. Some of the loans may well pay back in the next 8 weeks, but that will be because the borrowers want to redeem them, and have already set the wheels in motion. This loan may be one such, it may not.