London Capital and Finance

Jelli

billyolly wrote: »

I wounded what people think about the 2 LFC Facebook groups?
The bond holders seem to say keep calm and carry on the Action Group don’t seem so positive and seem to be lead by some one from a claims management company.
I personally like a lot of the information on this site ,I don’t feel confident that I will be much of my money back.

I suppose the Action Group might say money will be lost as a result of the admin coming in who needs to be paid, and if they have an agenda of benefiting LCF more than bondholders then someone more independent and competent is needed.

They might say the choice is sticking with a suspect admin where bondholders just watch on, or getting an experienced advocate who will pull apart the failings of LCF and get as much money back as possible.

I don't know what to think personally.

Sledger

[QUOTE
I don't understand how the administrator on BBC MoneyBox confirmed that the amount of money loaned to the 12 companies matches the amount of money LC&F had taken from its bondholders if such a high referral fee had been paid? I doubt the referral fee was being paid from shareholder capital.

Alex
Originally posted by Alexland][/QUOTE]

Q for Bailin You tried to get info on the LCF loans out of your own time and cost so How does the Expert who has access to all documents and the ears of LCF Director and paid a huge hourly rate and spent supposedly quite a few hours come up with that. Did he just quote what the directors told him without doing his homework that the were total Fibbers

sully1311

billyolly wrote: »

I wounded what people think about the 2 LFC Facebook groups?
The bond holders seem to say keep calm and carry on the Action Group don’t seem so positive and seem to be lead by some one from a claims management company.
I personally like a lot of the information on this site ,I don’t feel confident that I will be much of my money back.

I doubt you'll get anything back.

Sledger

Here is another riddle The signed off account by {text removed by MSE Forum Team} and Ernst Young on 16 Feb 2018.sttaes 11 companies and 5 for 2016
. This does not stack up as out of the 11 companies stated only 5 were established and the other 6 were mainly established in April 2017 within days before the 2017 accounts were made up. These initial 5 companies who were initially loaned only 6.848 million in 2016 must have been trickle feed a massive further 47.9 million during the year 2016 to 30 April 2017 as and when new Bond Money came in. Its highly unlikely that this 47.9 million of new incoming Bond money was sitting idle as 7.822 million is stated as incoming interest on loans during year 2016 to 2017. How was this not picked up by Ernst Young along with a verifying check on the continual increase in assets supposedly backing up these new 47,9 million incoming Bond money going to only 5 companies not 11 as stated. Ernst Young should have questioned on 16 Feb. 2018 why he was signing off accounts 10 months out of date and observed the accounting period had been shortened twice on 16 oct 2017 and 9 Jan 2018 and sent alarm bells ringing.. These initial 5 companies are likely to have had a further huge injection of cash between April 2017 and Dec 2018 . The FCA and God only knows Amen

masonic

Sledger wrote: »

[How does the Expert who has access to all documents and the ears of LCF Director and paid a huge hourly rate and spent supposedly quite a few hours come up with that. Did he just quote what the directors told him without doing his homework that the were total Fibbers

I don't think it is fair to kick an administrator for relying on "what the directors told him without doing his homework..."

Schedule B of the Insolvency Act 1986 states (my bold):
"Statement of company’s affairs
47(1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after appointment the administrator of a company shall by notice in the prescribed form require one or more relevant persons to provide the administrator with a statement of the affairs of the company.
(2)The statement must—
(a) be verified by a statement of truth in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules,
(b )be in the prescribed form,
(c) give particulars of the company’s property, debts and liabilities,
(d) give the names and addresses of the company’s creditors,
(e) specify the security held by each creditor,
(f) give the date on which each security was granted, and
(g) contain such other information as may be prescribed."

The potential consequences of submitting false information verified by a statement of truth would be contempt of court sanctions or prosecution for perjury. So it is reasonable for the administrators to accept the statement of affairs as being accurate in the first instance. Of course it should be carefully checked in the fullness of time.

Malthusian

masonic wrote: »

So it is reasonable for the administrators to accept the statement of affairs as being accurate in the first instance. Of course it should be carefully checked in the fullness of time.

Doesn't mean they have to go on national radio saying that LCF are jolly good chaps and it's probably all kosher.

In addition, Smith & Williamson claiming that LCF investors were high net worth or sophisticated is no part of a Statement of Affairs.

masonic

Malthusian wrote: »

Doesn't mean they have to go on national radio saying that LCF are jolly good chaps and it's probably all kosher.

In addition, Smith & Williamson claiming that LCF investors were high net worth or sophisticated is no part of a Statement of Affairs.

I agree, not only was that unprofessional, it was not in the best interests of creditors as it could prejudice any future personal liability claim.

billyolly

Just found another Facebook group London & Capital Finance PlC forum

Botheredin

billyolly wrote: »

Just found another Facebook group London & Capital Finance PlC forum

Can you post a link?

billyolly

Sorry not very tech savvy just stumbled across it by accident,I have been accepted into the group.Appears they don’t have a moderator and post whatever concerns you have.