Lendy Legal Fund

[locutus]

The fund raise is now up for those not aware.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/lendy-...egal-fund/

[Skint4achange]

Have just made a pledge.  Not bad, almost £15k in a few hours.

Looks like we might be going in for a fight!!

[CoolingDude]

Pledged my pennies - 1 day in and at £15k already; not going to take long it seems 

[ozboy]

GOTTA fight. 

Rolling over was never an option.

Yours,

General George S. "OzBoy" Patton.   

[linexpedition]

I'm in.

[Skint4achange]

I can't post on the other side (For obvious reasons!!  Not sure who it is obvious to but...) so can't ask the question there so will try here on the hope that someone with influence can answer me.

The question keeps coming up about how to inform ALL investors about the fund raising.  As the only people who have the complete list of all investors contact emails is RSM, can't the lawyer push for an email to be sent by RSM detailing the actions of LAG??

There would be no need to disclose the email addresses as RSM would send the email and we already have around 1200 people who could confirm or dispute the email had been sent??

While RSM might wholeheartedly object, I am sure a judge would see the benefit to investors as being the overriding consideration?

Just a thought

[jontyab]

Getting some coverage on https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ (not just their forums) would be a fruitful vector for many who don't engage with or aren't aware of of the forums.

The whole thing is probably juicy enough for their "news" page.
I'd suggest several of us give them a prod.

[timmy]

As the only people who have the complete list of all investors contact emails is RSM...

Maybe someone at Huddle has the list.

[Well, to be]

I have received an email this morning but have never registered for the group (as far as I can remember). I was very surprised.

[oldgrumpy]

I'm in, nameless.

[nyneil]

Adam Williams has shown quite some interest in the p2p scandals. He might be interested in sharing details of LAG's fund-raising initiative with his readers.

Adam Williams is a senior personal finance reporter at The Telegraph, covering mortgages, buy-to-let, banking and investments. Email him at adam.williams@telegraph.co.uk or find him on Twitter @adamfrwilliams

[Skint4achange]

Well, I have no idea who Jake is, but fair play to him, and he has promised more donations daily!!

If you donate £1000 and promise more, you either had your whole life savings invested, really have a problem with Liam "Lying Bar Steward" B, or both.

Maybe Jake is one of the "Not nice people" Liam allegedly got into bed with??

Edit: Have just notice that Jake "The hitman" has actually donated 3 times totalling over £2300

[linexpedition]

Saddening to see some of the comments, this one caught my eye:

This whole affair has completely ruined mine and my wife's retirement and so anything you can do to prevent Liam Brooke walking away with millions is greatly appreciated. If we have to lose the money then we will have to accept that but not to that scumbag. Good luck. Gary & Sue

[Skint4achange]

Saddening to see some of the comments, this one caught my eye:

This whole affair has completely ruined mine and my wife's retirement and so anything you can do to prevent Liam Brooke walking away with millions is greatly appreciated. If we have to lose the money then we will have to accept that but not to that scumbag. Good luck. Gary & Sue

I think we need a thumbs down or crying emoji for posts like this.

The amount I stand to lose would probably get Liam and his witch a weekend away in Marbella, I do feel for people who have life changing amounts.

I have always considered there are 3 kinds of investors.  People invest for Need, greed or to feed.  I invest because I Need to combat inflation, some people invest even though they have lots of money but want more (Greed), but it's the Feed people I feel sorry for.  The ones who invest because this is the only chance they have to have a life that we all look forward to in retirement.

I really do hope karma bites LB in the arse, really hard.

[ozboy]

It seems someone has still to go round and have a cuppa tea, biscuit and a reasoning chat with Mr Brooke, you know, appeal to his better nature.

And after that, they might visit and have a friendly soiree with The Currie Brothers of Collateral and Luxmore & Our Nigel of Funding Secure fame.

[Skint4achange]

I would be quite worried if I was LB.  He has to realise that by plundering peoples life savings and living his champagne lifestyle at investors expense is likely to tip someone over the edge.

Now, I am not saying that anyone should do anything rash, but someone facing the very real prospect of being financially ruined because of the hidden T&C's that were obviously inserted to benefit only one person, could easily become mentally unstable.

In these days of internet and social media it is very easy for someone to find out a lot about someone without leaving a trace (Physical rather than electronically).  Even worse is the ease with which certain services can be procured on the dark web.

  For clarity: I am not by any means suggesting that anyone would or should do the above.  I am merely stating a point of view

[paul123]

From Lisa on fb:
Many have asked what we are doing with the funds we raised. Whilst I cant give out too much detail, I can tell you we have provided counsel with thousands of pages containing amongst other things, mis selling and mis leading materials, structure of notes, terms and conditions since Lendy's inception and all the data we accumulated since administration commenced.

The solicitors and a small group of M2 Investors are working to finalise what our exact strategy is and to put RSM on notice of our grievances. 

That'll get the ball rolling but how far it goes is up to us. We must have the resources to stand and fight.  Please contribute!

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/lendy-...egal-fund/

[redskyatnight]

Let me start by thanking everyone who has supported this effort with your time, kind words and financial support. As we pass the 2/3rd's mark, its clear that the new pledges have slowed and we may end up short of our £75,000 goal.
 
This is unfortunate because discussions with counsel suggest we have a strong case with excellent prospects, but, without the needed funds we leave ourselves exposed to the possibility of running out of cash before we can action all the items on our list. 
 
Right now, over 700 individuals have contributed. If everyone of us were to contribute £40 we would reach the goal almost immediately. I know this a lot to ask so I'm going to ask for you to considering giving whatever you can.
 
WILL YOU GIVE $10, £20 OR EVEN [b]£50 TODAY TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND TO DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE THE AMOUNTS RECOVERED AND PAID TO ALL M2 INVESTORS?[/b]
 
We continue to working diligently to address the waterfall and simultaneously, to secure the rights of M2 investors as creditors of LL and SSSH. based on our success in these actions, we will begin working on other initiatives on your behalf.
 
Thank you again, for all your support.
 
Lisa Taylor, On behalf of LAG Legal

[Serpico]

Tend to agree with poster on 'the other place' that the Big Platforms should be encouraged to make a donation to the LAG Fund in solidarity with it's lenders against a system which, if left to succeed, will damage the P2P industry (ie themselves) no end!!

[MarkT]

I still can't believe that there are only ~1200 people who have funds trapped in Lendy, so where are the others donations?

[jeffmr2oc]

bunged in a few quid

[redskyatnight]

The question keeps coming up about how to inform ALL investors about the fund raising.  As the only people who have the complete list of all investors contact emails is RSM, can't the lawyer push for an email to be sent by RSM detailing the actions of LAG??

There would be no need to disclose the email addresses as RSM would send the email and we already have around 1200 people who could confirm or dispute the email had been sent??

Seems reasonable.

I have forgotten how many investors there were in Lendy but surely far more than the 1100 or so there were in Collateral where the loan book was only about £16 million ? With pledges to the LAG at 1247 (with some duplication) when I looked just now, there may still be some or even many investors who don't know what is going on.

This is actually a good general point - if there is any aspect of any one of the administrations (Lendy, Collateral, FS) where information ought in fairness to be communicated to all investors (even to cover some contentious point pertaining to a particular loan and sent only to investors in that one loan) then it is surely incumbent on the administrator to ensure this is done, and especially if it is information that could lead to some criticism or even an action against the administrator for negligence, lack of due care, call it what you will.)

If I count correctly there are about 6 pages of members on this forum and about 100 listed per page, so only 600. How many can be said to be active or who log on regularly? I don't know how many there are on the other (much older) 'Independent' forum but I would guess far more. However, I would also guess also that many of those are 'dead' profiles in that the people have not logged in or posted for maybe several years.

Therefore, from the available databases of forum members, is there a way of estimating how many forum members have actually viewed (say) the Lendy or the Collateral forms in total, and also (say) been active in the last three months, perhaps since LAG began its fund raise?

I'm thinking out loud here, but if it can be shown or even suggested as a reasonable possibility that few investors are active members, then the chances are that many don't know what is going on - either with LAG or any other issue where their legitimate interests would best be served by being updated via a timely email  sent from or via platform administrators.

Of course, there are the regular (infrequent) updates from the administrators on their own websites and/or copied to investors, but these may not catch important 'one off' pieces of information that in fairness should be brought to the especial attention of some or all investors and in a timely manner - that is, before any date or deadline passes after which access to the particular piece of information might be valueless.

[Skint4achange]

While I understand RSM are acting for creditors of Lendy, my understanding is that we are ALL now creditors of Lendy?

If this is the case, then the next update from RSM can carry a paragraph about the LAG and they can still claim to be acting in the best interests of creditors. 

My reading between the lines is that RSM are not going to attempt to defend any case put before the courts but simply allow the judge to make a decision based on the facts.  Lets hope we don't get the same one as was in the London loan court room.

[CoolingDude]

While I understand RSM are acting for creditors of Lendy, my understanding is that we are ALL now creditors of Lendy?

I don't think that's right - although I've completely lost with most of this, so trust somebody will jump in if I am wrong.  I'm going to try this without mentioning "waterfall"

Unlike COL, LY was suitably regulated and everything falls back on the contracts which (apparently) the regulators have no issues with - so where applicable Lendy was true P2P with LY as an agent.  However, old T&C loans were not P2P so anyone in those loans will be Creditors of LY.  This would all make some sense in the murky world of P2P, but the tom dickery that is Liam has positioned himself as a creditor, and the way repayments are now handled will benefit creditors and thus possibly Liam.  If this occurs, it will be a dark day for P2P

If you have loans in old T&C you will be considered a creditor - new T&Cs, then you are a Lender (creditor of the borrowers that you lent money to) with LY as agent taking their cut; the later gets their returns as dictated by contracts investors never saw (and was changed over time) - great if there is a full return, not so great when there is a shortfall, and investors fall down the pecking order with a large lump going into the creditors pot

Old T&C loan investors invested in LY - LY is liable to pay that debt (not borrowers) and did so in a P2P-ish way, but now Admin has arrived, they couldn't care less about how LY used to treat them and now simply view these guys as creditors.  The irony is that the remaining old T&C loans, possible amongst the worst on LY, are now looking quite attractive propositions

And if you take that all in, you will see how biased Admin will be towards Creditors - not entirely their fault as they have a duty to Creditors, but also haven't really done much to help the P2P lenders.  There urgently needs to be unbiased representation for the P2P lenders and clarification for the wider P2P.  Personally, I think there needs to a complete split of Security Holdings and Agent, with a different Admin acting for both; there should also be a review of how LY applied T&Cs and Contracts, and a careful consideration of how they should be applied for P2P as a whole - something that needs help from the FCA, so not holding my breath here

[Skint4achange]

May be I was dreaming but I am sure it was mentioned that all lenders were being considered as creditors of Lendy to the tune of £1.  Unsure of the reason behind this, but maybe I was dreaming.

[CoolingDude]

May be I was dreaming but I am sure it was mentioned that all lenders were being considered as creditors of Lendy to the tune of £1.  Unsure of the reason behind this, but maybe I was dreaming.

Again - I could be wrong...

I don't think you are misremembering, but I think that was just for logistics to allow lenders a say on Creditors Committee; you are a creditor to the sum of £1, it doesn't have any bearing on your investments.  If it can be argued that LY is liable for losses from investments, then Lenders may become creditors to the sum of the losses occurred, but that is hypothetical and will require court days (and involve opening a whole new can of worms)

[ozboy]

Mess, absolute fornicating MESS.

Good job, Well Done FCA - Outstanding!

[Darabont]

May be I was dreaming but I am sure it was mentioned that all lenders were being considered as creditors of Lendy to the tune of £1.  Unsure of the reason behind this, but maybe I was dreaming.

Yes, for the purpose of agreeing the administrators proposals & the election of a creditors committee Model 2 lenders were admitted as creditors for a nominal sum of £1 (somewhere DI has commented on this Insolvency practice - FS thread maybe) but this is not the same as being accepted as actual creditors in its standard definition. RSM may accept lenders as a creditors due to the potential claims that lenders may have against Lendy for its various failings & alleged naughtiness in its role as agent and that is one of the areas that the LAG legal action is seeking to address. Its probably going to need a court to agree to it to prevent RSM being subject to challenge from existing creditors whose position would be worsened if there were a large number of additional claimants on the creditors pot.

[mason]

And if you take that all in, you will see how biased Admin will be towards Creditors - not entirely their fault as they have a duty to Creditors, but also haven't really done much to help the P2P lenders.  There urgently needs to be unbiased representation for the P2P lenders and clarification for the wider P2P.  Personally, I think there needs to a complete split of Security Holdings and Agent, with a different Admin acting for both; there should also be a review of how LY applied T&Cs and Contracts, and a careful consideration of how they should be applied for P2P as a whole - something that needs help from the FCA, so not holding my breath here

Is it still the case that nobody has so much as seen a sample Loan Contract, let alone agreed to lend under those terms as is required by the general T&Cs?

Perhaps another change that could be applied to P2P as a whole is to prevent firms from being able to unilaterally bind lenders to contractual terms they are not informed of, and not permitted to examine. Could such a contract be valid?

[CoolingDude]

Is it still the case that nobody has so much as seen a sample Loan Contract, let alone agreed to lend under those terms as is required by the general T&Cs?

Contracts were never revealed to lenders via the platform; even if they were on request afterwards (no idea - I was never presented with one from LY despite much lobbying), it really doesn't matter - the most important point when that info should be available is when the loan goes live, or any material change afterwards.  Again, I keep getting confused about the finer details here, so not 100% sure all of the issues are with the contracts, but there is an issue about transparency which has led to this point.  I continue to be bewildered that the FCA have both accepted this in the first instance, and continue to accept it by refusing to apply input into the current situation (I assume the first instance of them doing bugger all now means they can't do bugger all)

This is a really strange situation for the Admin because as far as they are concerned they have all the paperwork in order and continue to do what they are doing.  Not only that, they could probably highlight how great that is for creditors.  Again, there really is little they can do, nor need to do, which is why representation for the LY P2P Investors is much needed.  The admin really can't do anything more (actually - that's not true - they could, maybe should, but are not obliged to and have little incentive), but such is the strange situation they are placed they will no doubt be happy to see it put through court (I doubt they will let it fly through as suggested though {@Skint4achange} - creditors will have a say in this, and Admin continues to represent them)