London Capital and Finance

masonic

Linton wrote: »

IOG is a genuine AIM listed company (Market Cap £18M) who borrowed money from London Oil & Gas. LOG has the usual people on its board and a charge from LCF. It is owned by London Power Corporation which in turn is owned by London Group. So perhaps LCF is contracting out its lending to its specialist associated companies. Why the hierarchy of lending companies?

In which case, it is clear that these end-borrowers have no contractual relationship with LCF bondholders and the charges registered would not be considered Trust Assets, but rather assets of LCF or one of its associated companies.

One might think that isn't an issue, because as long as a charge is registered, either a repayment or recovery would return bondholders' cash. However, if it is found that LCF acted unlawfully, borrowers could be released from such charges (they would still owe the money as an unsecured debt), or if other creditors have a claim on LCF, they will be entitled to a proportional share of any such recoveries.

jimjames

HappyHarry wrote: »

Hopefully this thread alone put off a few people from 'investing' with LC&F. I hope that no investors lose money, but I feel that is unlikley to be the case.
Who knows, we might then be able to save even more people from losing money in unregulated investments in the future.

Let's hope so but some as below thought they know better

**** wrote: »

The hard bit to accept here is our conditioning to anybody offering high interest way above the norm sets up alarm bells and caution. I am remaining positive with LCF and have taken that risk

After reading some of the early posts it's very sad to see ones such as the above that suggested we were being alarmist and too cautious by warning about the risk of capital loss. It's a shame that some people who invested didn't listen but at least realised that they had taken some risk even if it wasn't the risk they thought they were taking.

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

Could the hierarchy be a way to confuse investigations and stop the charge on assets being enforceable if the loan has been passed on?

What is clear is that there is a very elaborate ruse at play to put as much distance between bondholders and the ultimate beneficiaries of their money as possible. It's difficult to think of a reason other than frustrating the process of them being reunited with their cash.

Reaper

masonic wrote: »

What is clear is that there is a very elaborate ruse at play to put as much distance between bondholders and the ultimate beneficiaries of their money as possible. It's difficult to think of a reason other than frustrating the process of them being reunited with their cash.

Maybe to maintain the illusion that none of the loans has defaulted? If the end company goes bust but you only deal with a middle man the loan has not defaulted until the the guy in the middle admits it.

digannio

The way things are beginning to shape up you wouldn't be surprised if the investigation into this ends up in the hands of an entirely different authority.

bail-in

The LC&F Account Team Managers said the commercial loans were not being relent. If they are which it looks like this is the case, that may be a serious violation of trust. In that case if 75% of the bondholders agreed all interest and capital would be immediately returnable to the bondholders. That would have to be taken up with the LC&F security trustee. Yep, good luck with that!

bail-in

London Capital and Finance is nothing compared to this:

https://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/advanced/the-money-multiplier-and-other-myths-about-banking/

jimjames

Reaper wrote: »

Maybe to maintain the illusion that none of the loans has defaulted? If the end company goes bust but you only deal with a middle man the loan has not defaulted until the the guy in the middle admits it.

Imagine scenario where middle man re-lends 50% of the original loan and uses the other 50% to pay the interest due to LCF. No default but the capital is being used up to pay the bondholder and eventually default will happen.

One LCF linked company appears to have £28m asset revaluation in their accounts shortly before borrowing money. Their most recent accounts now show that the valuation is impaired and yet to be quantified. The precursor to not being able to repay the capital despite allegedly having "asset backed security" in place?

Sledger

LCF CEO {Edited by Forum Team} set up 2 companies with a variation to his name by putting a {Edited by Forum Team} which does not look accidental. Why ?? Both Companies being Dissolved,


ORACLE HEALTHCARE PLC Company number 10159925 {Text removed by MSE Forum Team} 50,000 GDP
{Edited by Forum Team} Secretary
{Edited by Forum Team} Director DOB {Edited by Forum Team}
{Edited by Forum Team} DOB {Edited by Forum Team}

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08375616 {Text removed by MSE Forum Team} 10,000 GDP
{Edited by Forum Team}
{Edited by Forum Team}

verybigchris

From their most recent (April 2017!) audited accounts:

Related party transactions

During the year one of the directors, {Text removed by MSE Forum Team}, was remunerated via a service company. Total remuneration paid to the service company for the year was £33,490.

Included within other creditors as at the statement of financial position date was an amount of.£7,474 owed to {Text removed by MSE Forum Team}, a director of the company. The amount represents a non-interest bearing working capital loan with no formal terms.

As at the statement of financial position date, of the total bonds held, £25,000 was held by the company itself.

Included within costs associated with issuing bonds and loans throughout the period is £98,400 paid to
London Capital Marketing Limited. a fellow subsidiary of London Financial Group Limited. There was no balance outstanding at the Statement of financial position date (2016: £nil).

If they had undeclared loans to related parties on 30 April 2017, then both the LC&F directors and their auditors (Ernst & Young) have some serious explaining to do.