London Capital and Finance

GDB2222

Malthusian wrote: »

If you mean me I appreciate that perfectly well. I also appreciate that if the advice is that there may be a prospect of recovery, and their legal advisers are then given the job and spend a lot of money trying to recover the £10 million to no avail, they will be able to wave the initial advice in front of any aggrieved creditors who question "wasting" all that money on legal fees and administrators' fees.

I'm sure that some administrators do regard money returned to creditors as wasted, when it could be spent perfectly well on their own fees.

redux

masonic wrote: »

The route bondholders are attempting to pursue is for bad regulated advice. There is no need for investments to be protected to qualify for FSCS compensation for bad advice. You just need a Financial Ombudsman decision that your adviser should give you partial or full redress for the capital you lost, and if that adviser is unable to meet their obligation to repay you the FSCS will compensate you.

The problem is, bondholders didn't receive regulated financial advice, even if they, in hindsight, think what they were told on the phone might qualify. So this route is dependent on the FSCS breaking its own rules, which it has done before but might not do again.

This seems to be still under exploration

FT yesterday

Lawyers investigating the London Capital & Finance scandal are aiming to bring claims against the UK’s financial compensation scheme on behalf of the 11,600 investors hit by the company's collapse.

LCF’s administrators and insolvency experts from the law firm Mishcon de Reya are combing through recordings of phone calls between customers and representatives of the company in search of proof that investors were advised to buy the mini-bonds.

Such proof could mean bondholders are eligible for up to £50,000 each under the industry-funded Financial Services Compensation Scheme after LCF collapsed in January with £236m of investors’ money, prompting a criminal investigation.

sully1311

Info from the bondholders meeting with S&W yesterday: http://www.cityam.com/276665/london-capital-finance-investors-rage-against-fca-ey-and

GDB2222

That's interesting. Unless they can show that advice was given in the vast majority of cases, that's going to benefit only selected investors.

It's been suggested here that, as any advice to ordinary investors would have been outside the scope of LCF's authorisation, it ought not to be covered by FSCS. Have I understood that correctly? Apparently, the lawyers don't agree, or there's no point in what they are doing.

Lungboy

Crucial released a statement:

Supercalafragalistic

Interesting...surge financial links to lcf) lend to surge group. Surge group loans money to crucial.
No ties? 2 degrees of separation?

bail-in

https://www.ftadviser.com/mortgages/2019/04/17/fca-to-probe-lenders-business-models/

However, mortgage lending is a regulated activity unlike mini-bonds.

GDB2222

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Interesting...surge financial links to lcf) lend to surge group. Surge group loans money to crucial.
No ties? 2 degrees of separation?

The question is whether Neil Williams and his company have done anything wrong? You apparently think they have, but you have not spelt out what that is. Perhaps you should stop hiding behind slurs and innuendo.

You seem to think that every penny Captain Careful spends is tainted. That may be a reasonable view, but then why pick on Neil Williams? Why not the car dealers who sold him flash cars and made a fine profit from this tainted money?

Supercalafragalistic

Neil Williams?

GDB2222

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Neil Williams?

Yes, Neil Williams. What do you have against him, exactly?