London Capital and Finance

Reaper

I don't think there is any need to wade through 70 pages. I just looked back at the first page (I'm on old format so my page size may be different) and all the high post contributors warned against it and/or to look elsewhere.

We hadn't looked into it in the same detail then as now but even so here are a few quotes all from people with over 1000 posts and all on the first page.

"LC&F is registered with the FCA for consumer credit activities. It is NOT registered for investments so these are non regulated investments where you can lose 100% of your money and also not get interest paid."
"in respect of these loans, which would be made as unregulated investments, you have no recourse to FSMA, FOS or FSCS."
"Not suitable for inexperienced investors"
"bargepole"
"if it does go wrong, there will be a lot off people chasing the small amount of remaining assets to split between them."

billyolly

Who choses the bond holders who sit in with the creditors?
There is a lady from a claims management company putting her name forward but she only represents about 10% of bond holders
How do they choose peoples compertance to understand the complicated issues.

GDB2222

billyolly wrote: »

Who choses the bond holders who sit in with the creditors?
There is a lady from a claims management company putting her name forward but she only represents about 10% of bond holders
How do they choose peoples compertance to understand the complicated issues.

That's easy. Anybody who has bonds is not competent.

Malthusian

billyolly wrote: »

Who choses the bond holders who sit in with the creditors?

Bondholders are creditors. I assume by "creditors" you mean "the creditors' committee". The answer is the bondholders.

It would be unusual for there to be more volunteers for this thankless and powerless job (which generally consists mostly of reading the administrator's bill and saying "ok I guess") than seats on the committee. But this isn't a very usual case. If the creditors can't agree who to appoint, I guess it would come down to a vote, with votes weighted by money owed.

GDB2222 wrote:

That's easy. Anybody who has bonds is not competent.

As wrong as it was unnecessary Anybody who doesn't have bonds is not eligible. The creditors' committee has to be made up of creditors, funnily enough. Jane Sanders, who I believe billyolly is referring to, is not proposing to sit on the committee but to assist the administrators in other ways.

jimjames

billyolly wrote: »

Who choses the bond holders who sit in with the creditors?
There is a lady from a claims management company putting her name forward but she only represents about 10% of bond holders
How do they choose peoples compertance to understand the complicated issues.

I think it's important to get the facts correct. The person you're referring to is not from a claims management company and isn't representing anyone at the moment. She is a specialist lawyer who can look at ways of recovering funds alongside the administrators.

The administrators are purely there to look at the assets of the company and recover as much from those assets as they can for the creditors which includes bondholders. Bondholders haven't got a choice on the lawyers used by administrators or what there fees are so it seems a bit odd that some are so up in arms about another person trying to aid additional recovery. From the administrators they've suggested recovery may be up to 20% of the investments made, surely any other avenues to increase that have got to be worthwhile.

masonic

The administration I'm currently involved in as a creditor played out just as Malthusian described above. There were around a dozen volunteers, each submitted a short biography and we voted, weighted by the size of our claim. It might be possible for a creditor to nominate a representative to sit on the committee and have that representative included in the vote - in my case, an individual took on some of the debt by assignment, so was considered to be a creditor themselves.

I would value someone with relevant professional qualifications more than an average bondholder who doesn't really understand financial or legal matters.

GDB2222

Malthusian, do you really think that any of th people who invested in the bonds really are competent to understand the far more complex issues involved in trying to maximise the dividend to creditors? I appreciate how the creditors committee is made up, but maybe they should leave the administrators to get on with it.

masonic

GDB2222 wrote: »

Malthusian, do you really think that any of th people who invested in the bonds really are competent to understand the far more complex issues involved in trying to maximise the dividend to creditors? I appreciate how the creditors committee is made up, but maybe they should leave the administrators to get on with it.

An excerpt from a statement made by another administrator in relation to their own creditors committee:
"The role of the Committee is to assist the Joint Administrators in discharging their functions and obligations, and will include liaising with the Joint Administrators in relation to matters of strategy, determining the basis and level of the Joint Administrators’ fees, and generally acting as a sounding board for the Joint Administrators to obtain views on matters pertaining to the administrations."

Note that they listed 3 items, but sandwiched the most important item between the other two. The administrators of LCF will encourage the formation of a committee as it will make it easier for them to get their fees approved, and it is extremely likely at least a few people will volunteer for the role. So, the formation of a committee is almost certain.

Botheredin

Of course, the promised link of the BBC special never aired and won't be aired on iPlayer after Moneybox. Amazing what money can buy...

There will be more on this story on Moneybox on BBC Radio Four at 12:00 GMT on Saturday 9 March and on Inside Out on BBC One in the South West of England at 20:30 GMT on Monday 11 March, and afterwards on the iPlayer.

Supercalafragalistic

Botheredin wrote: »

Of course, the promised link of the BBC special never aired and won't be aired on iPlayer after Moneybox. Amazing what money can buy...

There will be more on this story on Moneybox on BBC Radio Four at 12:00 GMT on Saturday 9 March and on Inside Out on BBC One in the South West of England at 20:30 GMT on Monday 11 March, and afterwards on the iPlayer.

Oh no! What, you think the beeb was paid off?!?!