London Capital and Finance

Malthusian

Sledger wrote: »

Jim this is something I picked up that puzzled me. If there was only 7 million of Bondholders money how did they make a 15 Million Loan I tried looking for another one of their companies operating a similar scam funding it but drew a blank.

It was a facility of up to £15 million. It doesn't sound as if the full amount was ever drawn down - the administrators' report says "By August 2017, Spencer Golding became liable for a debt of £10,439,062 due to the Company".

Is it legal to offer someone a loan facility of £15 million when you don't actually have £15 million to lend them? I'm not sure on that point.

I'm not sure where Jim has taken the £7 million figure from. However, as at April 2016 LCF had raised £10 million, so it was certainly still under £15 million.

AnotherJoe

Malthusian I'll gladly open up a loan facility to you of £20M.
Of course how much I lend to you at any given time is dependent upon the results of my shortly to be announced nano-micro bond issue 1, fully guaranteed by Acme Guarantors Corp, domiciled in the Andaman Islands and administered out of The Comoros. I have to disclose a 20% payment out of your loan to Pauline Reckless which covers ancillary expenses such as horses and helicopters.

Supercalafragalistic

Another Joe ‘Pauline Reckless’:rotfl:

Sledger

Going through the S&W report is quite informative but feel they could put more emphasis on the scam by inserting the company family tree and listing against each company the date it was formed and list the Directors names to give a clearer picture of those involved . They say only 20% is recoverable and when you read it from someone who has no background history you get the feeling that S&W are up against a bunch of non cooperating locals in Cape Verdi etc saying NO SPEAK ENGLISH, S&W went in with a softly softly Kid Gloves approach and not sure why and that does not appear to have changed. When you read page 15 on Colina a brownfield Development in Dominica Republic with its £16,196,319 LCF loan (Excluding interest) it states S&W quote " We are exploring means to identify CPHL's interests in such property and LCF's rights to the same. The management of CPHL is being totally unhelpful" If it was made clear CPHL was Formed April 2017,by Elten, Sludgewick Kuntall where all 3 resigned 6 months later on 9 Oct 2017 to pave the way for chum Sandman to take the reigns followed by Michael Wickyleaks appointed 24 Jan 2019 after the FCA walked in. The company filed accounts for 100 on 20 Dec 2018 and as recently as 15 March 2019 used the same old tactic of extending the previous accounting period. putting 2 fingers up. The very same Sandman a director of Prime Resort Development Limited (£70,144,694 from LCF) needs more than a pretty please from S&W to be more helpful. How can this vast sum not be on the non recoverable list and moreover it should be a swift recovery. These are outright fraudsters who are interconnected and came up with a well planned joint scam so why treat them as if they were legitimate borrowers. A Bank vault contents gets looted and it can only be an inside job between bank employees, security, cleaners and the T boy. Police come in and say to the bank manager the money is not recoverable as these guys are not cooperating. and wont tell us where the money is hidden. What am I missing here ??, https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk/joint%20administrators%20proposals.pdf

Supercalafragalistic

A Bank vault contents gets looted and it can only be an inside job between bank employees, security, cleaners and the T boy. Police come in and say to the bank manager the money is not recoverable as these guys are not cooperating. and wont tell us where the money is hidden. What am I missing here ??, https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk/joint%20administrators%20proposals.pdf[/QUOTE]

Sledger : i too dont understand why they cant make them co operate...its ridiculous.
To your mind, are Surge culpable , in respect of being part of the initial set up? (T boy? Bank Employee?)

masonic

Sledger wrote: »

What am I missing here ?

What exactly do you suggest they do? They have a few options...

- The softy, softy approach, in which they don't apply too much pressure, so as not to distress the loans, with a view to maximising the eventual recovery (i.e. the course they stated they would follow immediately after appointment)
- Go in heavy handed and default the loan (if this is possible - it may not be)
- Give up pursuit of the debt as the cost of chasing it might outweigh the amount recovered

The heavy handed option assumes the borrower has broken the loan terms, which may not be the case. If, for the sake of argument they have not kept up repayments they should have been making, then the administrators could issue a formal demand for repayment, then after waiting the prescribed period start insolvency proceedings against the company and attempt to enforce the loan security (if any).

That will of course accelerate accrual of fees, which were £700,000 at the time of the report. Receivers would need to be appointed and the undeveloped land would then need to be sold, probably at fire-sale prices. What would an undeveloped piece of land in the Dominican Republic sell for if it needed to be offloaded? Certainly much less than the original valuation, which almost certainly would have included plenty of hope value based on what the completed development was expected to be worth.

The softly softly approach might be better in the long run for bondholders as there might be options to refinance the loan further down the line.

Then again, if it is just a scam as you claim, then the land is probably worthless and the administrators would be best off writing it off because bondholders are unlikely to receive anything after the fees associated with the legal process and disposal of the asset.

masonic

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Sledger : i too dont understand why they cant make them co operate...its ridiculous.
To your mind, are Surge culpable , in respect of being part of the initial set up? (T boy? Bank Employee?)

They can't make them cooperate because they have no legal power to compel them to do so. Such power must come from a court, which means court action must be taken, along with all of the expense and delays of the legal process. It would be foolish to initiate such proceedings if it cannot be established that there is money there to be recovered, or a successful case could be brought against a director personally who has sufficient assets that could settle the claim.

For context, I invested in a P2P loan that defaulted in July 2016. Now, almost 3 years later and at significant legal expense, the director (who stole the loan security and cash from his company) is only just being brought before a judge with a view to being held personally liable for the debt.

masonic

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Masonic...cant they sequestrate assetts under proceeds of crime or such like?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the Joint Administrators. Perhaps you are confusing them with the Serious Fraud Office or other law enforcement agencies.

Administrators can enforce legal charges and debentures of debtors who have broken the terms of their loan agreements, but they have no ability to pursue other assets. To go after those they need to go to court. To go after directors personally, they would first need to prove in court that they acted improperly.

Botheredin

masonic wrote: »

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the Joint Administrators. Perhaps you are confusing them with the Serious Fraud Office or other law enforcement agencies.

Administrators can enforce legal charges and debentures of debtors who have broken the terms of their loan agreements, but they have no ability to pursue other assets. To go after those they need to go to court. To go after directors personally, they would first need to prove in court that they acted improperly.

Hence why only AT's helicopter is under control and the horses, albeit not the genuine ones, are being looked at by S&W and not the personal gains of houses, other horses, supercars and other aircraft etc.

GDB2222

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Masonic...cant they sequestrate assetts under proceeds of crime or such like?

The key word in Proceeds of Crime Act is crime. This only applies after a successful criminal prosecution. That's a matter for the police, the CPS, and the SFO.

What is more, a confiscation order under POCA takes money away from the criminal and gives it to the government, not the investors. It does not help investors and may make it harder for them.

BTW, I do not wish to imply anybody involved with this company has done anything criminal.