|
|
Post by p2pspy on Sept 6, 2017 14:06:01 GMT
This loan is the result of a company liquidation in June 2016 and involves a bridging finance company.
A very reliable source has told me that Thincats have today refused full settlement of loans to this company totalling £1m. This is the full amount of the debt which would result in lenders getting their full investment returned to them, possibly within days.
The refusal of the offer is on the basis that the funds may be at risk of being reclaimed in the event that the payment is challenged by some future liquidation of the company buying the debt from Thincats.
I understand that the risk of this happing is negligible and that there are ways of eliminating this risk altogether.
Thincats are under pressure from their legal advisers and the Liquidator (yes - they are using the same solicitor!! CONFLICT ALERT!! Exactly who's best interests are the solicitors working for? The liquidator? Thincats? Themselves? ) not to accept payment other than through the liquidator, who has run up costs of over £900k and they of course want to get paid first!!
They have run up these costs on a no-win no-fee basis so are way out of pocket and need Thincats on board to ensure their fees are not challenged.
It looks like Thincats are bowing to pressure from them rather than ensuring their lenders get paid in full now.
If anyone knows any investors in B****** L**** UK they should get in touch with the sponsor W****** F***** or Thincats to ensure that they are open and honest with their investors.
If I hear more I'll post it here.
P2PSpy
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 6, 2017 14:14:57 GMT
MOD HAT OFF (just to be clear)
>>The refusal of the offer is on the basis that the funds may be at risk of being reclaimed in the event that the payment is challenged by some future liquidation of the company buying the debt from Thincats.<<
I would have thought that was likely very legitimate grounds for refusal of offered settlement. TC could not possibly re-distribute to lenders while there was any potential for a future reclaim.
Declration: I very much have an interest in recoveries on this borrower.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2pspy on Sept 6, 2017 14:32:29 GMT
<<I would have thought that was likely very legitimate grounds for refusal of offered settlement. TC could not possibly re-distribute to lenders while there was any potential for a future reclaim.>>
Correct but I understand they have not explored how to de-risk this. There are several ways to legally do this including obtaining a personal guarantee from the purchaser.
Surely that's the route for Thincats to go down rather than risk being paid through the liquidation which may be another 12 months down the line along with another 12 moths worth of costs (so £1.8m in costs?) which could be paying creditors.
If it was Thincats own money rather than investors I can't help thinking that they would try to find a solution to achieve repayment rather than looking after their legal advisors.
|
|
panda
Posts: 56
Likes: 23
|
Post by panda on Sept 6, 2017 15:11:57 GMT
You would probably get many more responses from lenders if you posted on the TC private forum, not many TC lenders seem to frequent this forum. Don't think I'm in this one (haven't managed to decipher the *s) so can't really comment.
EDit: Got it now, it's usually known by initials, but one I managed to avoid.
After some (bad) experiences I wouldn't trust a PG from anyone any more.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977 
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Sept 6, 2017 15:40:48 GMT
I assume that this refers to #112 and #132, I am very glad to say that I did not invest in these either, however there was a syndicate update on 1-Aug-17.
It seems to me that it is not likely to be helpful to discuss these loans further on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2pspy on Sept 6, 2017 16:58:15 GMT
I assume that this refers to #112 and #132, I am very glad to say that I did not invest in these either, however there was a syndicate update on 1-Aug-17. It seems to me that it is not likely to be helpful to discuss these loans further on this forum. Hi Steerpike Why do you think that it's not likely to be helpful to discuss these loans on this forum? The information is true and factual and could be useful for lenders who would be kept in the dark otherwise. Postings on the Thincats forum that do not match the views of Thincats themselves get removed by moderators.
|
|
panda
Posts: 56
Likes: 23
|
Post by panda on Sept 6, 2017 18:01:54 GMT
No they don't, try it and see. TC take quite a lot of stick on the private forum.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 6, 2017 18:33:36 GMT
I assume that this refers to #112 and #132, I am very glad to say that I did not invest in these either, however there was a syndicate update on 1-Aug-17. It seems to me that it is not likely to be helpful to discuss these loans further on this forum. Hi Steerpike Why do you think that it's not likely to be helpful to discuss these loans on this forum? The information is true and factual and could be useful for lenders who would be kept in the dark otherwise. Postings on the Thincats forum that do not match the views of Thincats themselves get removed by moderators. You assertion about TC censoring posts is utter rubbish. Who are you and are you by any chance connected with the borrower/guarantor?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,042
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 6, 2017 18:46:12 GMT
There are several ways to legally do this including obtaining a personal guarantee from the purchaser. And we all know what these are worth!
|
|
|
|
Post by p2pspy on Sept 6, 2017 18:53:10 GMT
Hi Steerpike Why do you think that it's not likely to be helpful to discuss these loans on this forum? The information is true and factual and could be useful for lenders who would be kept in the dark otherwise. Postings on the Thincats forum that do not match the views of Thincats themselves get removed by moderators. You assertion about TC censoring posts is utter rubbish. Who are you and are you by any chance connected with the borrower/guarantor? Shimself, I have documentary evidence of TC removing a post that was well with their guidelines purely on the basis that it did not fit in with Thincat's own view, so please do not dismiss this as "utter rubbish" without any basis at all.
|
|
panda
Posts: 56
Likes: 23
|
Post by panda on Sept 6, 2017 19:28:00 GMT
There is a current thread on this topic (with no posts deleted or moderated) that you might want to read/contribute to on the private forum.
I follow the TC forums closely and I can say TC very rarely moderate or delete posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2pspy on Sept 6, 2017 19:42:37 GMT
There is a current thread on this topic (with no posts deleted or moderated) that you might want to read/contribute to on the private forum.
I follow the TC forums closely and I can say TC very rarely moderate or delete posts. Thanks Panda. I don't know whether the post I'm referring to as being deleted showed up as being "deleted by moderator" or not. If not, it would not be evident that it had been removed. However, I could not confirm either way other than the fact it was deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by scaevans on Sept 6, 2017 20:02:33 GMT
This loan is the result of a company liquidation in June 2016 and involves a bridging finance company. A very reliable source has told me that Thincats have today refused full settlement of loans to this company totalling £1m. This is the full amount of the debt which would result in lenders getting their full investment returned to them, possibly within days. The refusal of the offer is on the basis that the funds may be at risk of being reclaimed in the event that the payment is challenged by some future liquidation of the company buying the debt from Thincats. I understand that the risk of this happing is negligible and that there are ways of eliminating this risk altogether. Thincats are under pressure from their legal advisers and the Liquidator (yes - they are using the same solicitor!! CONFLICT ALERT!! Exactly who's best interests are the solicitors working for? The liquidator? Thincats? Themselves? ) not to accept payment other than through the liquidator, who has run up costs of over £900k and they of course want to get paid first!! They have run up these costs on a no-win no-fee basis so are way out of pocket and need Thincats on board to ensure their fees are not challenged. It looks like Thincats are bowing to pressure from them rather than ensuring their lenders get paid in full now. If anyone knows any investors in B****** L**** UK they should get in touch with the sponsor W****** F***** or Thincats to ensure that they are open and honest with their investors. If I hear more I'll post it here. P2PSpy P2Pspy I'm a journalist investigating the Peer to Peer market. Please can you pm me with regard to this post. If other users have any additional stories regarding this or similar cases please let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 6, 2017 20:19:57 GMT
TC have been pro-active (now a couple of hours ago) in sending out a lender update - in the knowledge of and referencing the posting on this forum. It specifically references that an offer has been made and their reasons for rejecting it. So no particular need for any lender - including me - to 'get in touch' with TC to ensure they are being 'open and honest', unless of course they feel that the TC update is in conflict with what has been posted here and should therefore be challenged (or should be challenged for any other reason).
|
|
|
|
Post by snowgoose on Sept 6, 2017 20:34:13 GMT
We had something like this a few months ago when a borrower in default, who was obviously frightened of what was about to happen to them,
tried it on with Thincats and got short shift. He too got a third party to try and stir up trouble amongst the lenders by signing up to enable him to post on the forum. He was kicked off by Thincats and lenders alike.
That borrower was only facing the receivers. This one is, it seems, likely to be facing someone wearing a wig. Methinks a degree of panic is setting in and the borrowers 'friend' doth protest too much. If the borrower is that nervous, try Imodium
|
|
