London Capital and Finance

bail-in

Jelli wrote: »

Some of the users have verbally spoken to FSCS who have told them they're covered, but they haven't received that in writing yet which is important.

In the past I have had the same experience more than once with FSCS first level phone support contact asking re FSCS cover if LCF and other similar financial business fail. Sometimes answer yes, other times no. Bit like first level computer tech support. Ask to be put through to a higher level of customer support. So If the answer is yes ask to speak to a supervisor or contact them by email for a more accurate response in which case the answer is no there is no FSCS cover.

Do not allow yourself to be fobbed off with vague responses like it depends on the individual circumstances of the application. Of course it does but if it was not hnown whether or not unregulated financial activities or products were FSCS covered then all issuers of unregulated bonds could state on their websites etc that "they may be covered."

I remember reading about a very frustrating Canadian legal case, re fobbing off. A medical doctor had brought a legal action against a popular soft drinks producer claiming that the drink was causing damage to health, particulary causing stomach ulceration. He had all the evidence to prove this and the judge had to decide in his favour. Of course this meant this drink would have to be taken off sale in Canada. This could not happen so to get round it the judge said that his decision only applied to that case of that soft drink! You can imagine how the plaintiff doctor felt. Have you tried the experiment of placing a tooth in a glass of acidic carbonated soft drinks for a few days. The tooth is discoloured and pitted from the dissolving of calcium and other alkaline minerals. The same thing happens to the first teeth when babies suck on lemons.

An interesting angle from the legal aspect here, re FSCS communication of information. If an employee of a company states to a prospective pre sales customer, as in a recorded sales call, an incorrect term and the customer enters into the contract relying on that, then the company has to abide by that even though the written terms and conditions state the opposite. This would apply to BT as the sales reps are employees. Does not apply if the company rep is an agent. Hence in the past some TalkTalk agency reps, not employees, in supermarkets said innacurate features, promises to potential customers to get a sale commission knowing they were not binding on the company. However, there is no contract with investors and the FSCS, so no chance taking that route.

verybigchris

Merry LC&F Accounts Day everyone. I hung my stocking up last night and nothing's appeared there yet, but they've still got 15 hours.

Sledger

re Post 642 from Jim James .I am just a mere police frogman and really struggle with searching info facts and go round in circles especially on Companies House and for the life of me would never have found that Malta link which you guys could do blindfolded . With all the data gathered .to date can anybody extend that tree to include $$$ amounts originating from LCF and add key names linked to LCF and put companies house links against each one and add any others not mentioned (and don't be {text removed by MSE Forum Team}) . This would be a useful summary tool especially when new stuff is unravelled and if we keep it updated when mew stuff is gathered as scrolling back is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi I guess FCA may have made some attempt with or without LCF cooperation but may have missed a few. companies or cash routes Thanks https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/lcf-linked-borrowers-company-structure.html

Sledger

jim James re
”
That article you linked would indicate that nothing other than LCF was frozen which would make sense. It's quite a web of companies so would presumably need a court order to freeze along with some justification why a borrower should be frozen.

Surely if they just moved LCF Bond holders money into these accounts as a buffer it is still LCF assets. If instead LCF formed a single company and moved all bond money into it and bought a castle with the proceeds surely the castle would be recoverable asset without the need for a court order...

bail-in

Sledger wrote: »

I am just a mere police frogman and really struggle with searching info facts and go round in circles...

I dunno I think you held your drink well, maybe a little bit out of your depth, but still treading water. Flippin' good all round I would say even though swimming against the tide sometimes. Some of the problems would need a tank to get through. Well we will soon enough know if we will wave goodbye to dear old crestfallen London Capital... :rotfl:

masonic

Sledger wrote: »

Surely if they just moved LCF Bond holders money into these accounts as a buffer it is still LCF assets. If instead LCF formed a single company and moved all bond money into it and bought a castle with the proceeds surely the castle would be recoverable asset without the need for a court order...

If you lend some money to Company A secured by a debenture on the assets of Company A, then Company A gives it to Company B to use to buy a castle, then you would have no recourse against Company B or claim over the castle to satisfy your debt.

If you lend some money to Company A secured by a debenture on the assets of Company A, then Company A loans it to Company B secured by another debenture on the assets of Company B, and Company B uses the funds to buy a castle, then you would have recourse against Company B by way of appointment of an Administrator of Company A who could pursue the debt to Company B. However, if Company B took out a secured loan to part-fund the purchase of the castle, then this charge may rank ahead of your non-specific charge and the other lender would be repaid in full before you received any share of the proceeds.

If Company B, instead of buying the castle in its own name, lent the money to Company C, this time in an unsecured loan, you would have recourse against Company C via Company A and Company B, but your claim would be unsecured, so if Company C also ran up other debts you'd all be sharing the sale proceeds of the castle and secured creditors would see their debt satisfied before anything was repaid to you as an unsecured creditor.

If Company B, instead of buying the castle, spent the money in a frivolous manner on the goods and services of Companies C, D, E and F, who may or may not share directors with Company B, but Company B held no assets of its own, then there would be no recourse beyond asset-less Company B and your money would be lost.

Of course, the costs and fees associated with appointing Administrators at the various stages and a receiver to sell the castle would rank ahead of all creditor claims and might eat away a substantial proportion of the proceeds of any recovery.

HTH

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

Of course, the costs and fees associated with appointing Administrators at the various stages and a receiver to sell the castle would rank ahead of all creditor claims and might eat away a substantial proportion of the proceeds of any recovery.

HTH

The situation with Secured Energy bonds is a perfect example. So far the administration has realised £288,579 in assets, of which £272,905 has been paid out in administration costs, predominantly the administrators’ own fees

https://bondreview.co.uk/2019/01/17/secured-energy-bonds-administrator-posts-update-seeks-5-6-million-from-the-ashes-of-independent-portfolio-managers/

Sledger wrote: »

re Post 642 from Jim James .I am just a mere police frogman and really struggle with searching info facts and go round in circles especially on Companies House and for the life of me would never have found that Malta link which you guys could do blindfolded .

It's been a fascinating investigation, I've got no money invested personally but I want to make sure everyone is aware what this crowd have been up to and hopefully stop others being ripped off by similar outfits.

I think there are 12 companies that have now been identified as owing money to LCF. The problem is knowing the destination of that money afterwards. Looking in the accounts shows what was there 2 years ago but without more recent ones it's not possible to see what's there now. It's also not possible to see what the breakdown of loans to different companies is, all you can tell is that a company owes LCF, not how much.

The only one we do know is London Oil & Gas because that has been publicly declared at approx £50m with £38m drawndown.

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/companies-linked-to-london-capital.html

Sledger

The LCF accounts due yesterday 17 January 2019 would have been for 26 April 2018 portraying 8 month old historic data . Correct me if I am wrong. but one assumes these 8 month historic accounts would have already been prepared and "Audited" ready to be filed at Companies House yesterday. Would the recent FCA intervention restrict LCF from filing these historic accounts on Companies House showing LCF figures before the FCA intervention or is it more likely {text removed by MSE Forum Team} never prepared them but forgot to file another delay tactic, Just been on Companies House big Chris and they have not been filed so our stockings are empty. If they accounts are going to be issued it would be interesting to see who did/will audit them with the current situation

Sledger

Bail in got a Company number and some cash figures please as remember PFM??


Wonder where Buss Murton Law fits into this LCF wholesale lending flow chart. They had a company which financially backed the Lakeview Country Club development.

bail-in

Clear in the following link that wholesale lending, according to the FCA, is too risky for individual investors.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4191998/Peer-peer-lending-risky-private-individuals.html