London Capital and Finance

Jelli

I think he has been treated differently purely because he runs the largest group, even though it's relatively small given the total number of bondholders out there. Originally some people on the smaller groups weren't happy because of this preferential treatment, but I think they've coalesced around him now.

masonic

Jelli wrote: »

I think he has been treated differently purely because he runs the largest group, even though it's relatively small given the total number of bondholders out there. Originally some people on the smaller groups weren't happy because of this preferential treatment, but I think they've coalesced around him now.

That's no excuse. The administrators are there for the benefit of all creditors. If they have information that they wish to distribute then it should be done through the proper channels. You all have the right to information that is accurate and not second hand.

If they are acting improperly in this regard, it does raise the question of what else they aren't doing properly.

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

You all have the right to information that is accurate and not second hand.

If they are acting improperly in this regard, it does raise the question of what else they aren't doing properly.

I agree. It certainly raises questions about the accuracy of the information that has come from second hand sources. If their aim was to reduce the number of calls into their call centre then it might backfire as unverified information could cause more people to get in touch. Standard answers on their website visible to all investors would avoid that.

Jelli

I totally agree.

One of their emails said something like 'we've been talking with the biggest Facebook group because they're the biggest Facebook group, but will engage with the other smaller groups' etc etc...

I need to find that email though for an accurate representation.

Malthusian

Jelli wrote: »

One of their emails said something like 'we've been talking with the biggest Facebook group because they're the biggest Facebook group, but will engage with the other smaller groups' etc etc...

I need to find that email though for an accurate representation.

The wording in the update of 21 February was: "The Administrators have been in constant communication with Nathan Brown who is the co-ordinator of the largest Bondholder Facebook Group. The Administrators have also been in contact with other smaller groups."

Jelli

That's it, thanks Malth.

billyolly

As a matter of interest how done the pecking order are the bond holders when the creditors start try allocate money.
Do LCF companies used in support services like cleaning,stationery,lease on office etc get money before bond holders..

Malthusian

billyolly wrote: »

As a matter of interest how done the pecking order are the bond holders when the creditors start try allocate money.
Do LCF companies used in support services like cleaning,stationery,lease on office etc get money before bond holders..

Support services of the kind you describe will be unsecured creditors. Best case for the bondholders is that the bondholders will be secured creditors, via Global Security Trustees Limited, and rank above them. This assumes the security is valid.

Worst case is that the bondholders will be unsecured creditors and rank alongside them.

Support services are virtually irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The main factor influencing how much, if anything, bondholders will get back from the Administration is how much money is actually left. A distant second is how much the administrators will take from this (they are always first in the queue).

How much is owed to non-bondholder creditors is either completely irrelevant (if they rank behind bondholders) or virtually irrelevant (if alongside). Bondholders are owed £220m-odd. Support services and other trade creditors may not come to more than a million. So it is unlikely to affect bondholders' returns more than a penny in the pound.

jimjames

Malthusian wrote: »

Support services of the kind you describe will be unsecured creditors. Best case for the bondholders is that the bondholders will be secured creditors, via Global Security Trustees Limited, and rank above them. This assumes the security is valid.

The interview on Moneybox with the administrators suggested that the trustee was irrelevant but that may change now that they have had more time to investigate

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/02/moneybox-london-capital-finance.html

jimjames

FSCS has issued a statement on LCF today stating it is not covered.

https://www.fscs.org.uk/news/2019/march/london-capital--finance-plc-has-failed/

But then says if anything changes they will consider claims

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/03/london-capital-finance-fscs-statement.html