London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Lloydyboy - a bg deal was made in the courtroom by the fca that the investors had reaped the benefits of an increasing shareprice and they should have a haircut. This has not happened with provident and so this is not a fair and reasonable request which is now subject to case law. The barrister acting will be able to now draw on this verdict and any judge will use it as precedent. Especially when the PROV share price has increased 40% since their SOA was announced. So in fact Provi success does help Amigo and helps protect the actual shareholders.
(sorry don't know how to quote on this site...).
It's only case law if the decision making process took reference of that fact, and considered it in the same context as ours. Does Provident still lend? Do they still have profitable divisions that would contribute to a rise in share price? Does the winding up of that division de-risk the share for investors and as such increase value?
Name me 5 SOA's that had failed prior to the AMGO one?
AMGO's argument was insolvency or SOA. Until people get their heads around that being the reason it fell down, we're never going to get anywhere...
Why was it £15m? Why not £17.2m? Etc etc etc. Why couldn't it be 100% of future profits instead of a small percentage? All good and fair questions asked by the judge. Our argument was "we can't afford it" and the judge merely pointed out "yes you can, you just don't want to..."
The BOD failed us with a complete lack of planning for the first SOA and, unless they change direction materially, will fail again with the second. It's really that simple. People blaming the FCA are so far wide of the mark it's unreal. The Judge did his job. The FCA did their job. Only one party didn't do theirs properly, and it wasn't either of them...
None of this deters me from holding my investment, I just don't think it's as smooth sailing as everybody hopes.
So close to breaking 9 only another 10 to go for a break even. Positive steps today long way to go. (Pointless post but atleast I’m consistent ;-) )
If amigo had stated in there first court case they where closing the business down the way provident have done then amigos soa would of passed first time around, you can’t use provident as a precedent as amigo still want to continue to issue credit
a bg deal was made in the courtroom by the fca that the investors had reaped the benefits of an increasing shareprice and they should have a haircut. This has not happened with provident and so this is not a fair and reasonable request which is now subject to case law. The barrister acting will be able to now draw on this verdict and any judge will use it as precedent. Especially when the PROV share price has increased 40% since their SOA was announced. So in fact Provi success does help Amigo and helps protect the actual shareholders.
Well, with SOA or without - for Provident shareholders it is complete write-off (equity goes to zero) of whole division without any chance for recovery no matter how you twist it in interpretation.
If same applies to amgo - then current sp is surprisingly high.
I’ll say it again Provident soa will have no impact whatsoever on amigos court case and there soa, non whatsoever
Provident's customer credit was a separate legal entity (subsidiary) with umbrella taking a hit (via additional investment)
Their situation is different in a way it was diversified business activities (customer credit was fraction of business)
Amigo holding (10024479) has all assets invested in intermediary (10624393) and in a chain to Amgo loans (04841153) - the troubled one , without any isolation or possibility to recover asset from it.
Provident took partial hit (full write-off of small business branch), Amgo Plc absorbs full impact without any recovery because it wasn't diversified and no reserves were left on PLC side.
It is really funny how inconsistent the FCA have been in treatment of Amigo compared to PFG. They literally both had the same 'email/letter' don't approve but won't turn up to court, the low and behold they rock up to Amigo court hearing but PFG don't hear a peep off them. Even more of a joke is that Amigo acknowledge and want to build a future relationship with the FCA to provide for these people that have been excluded from mainstream credit where as PFG a multi-million pound profitable company just want to wipe their hands of the sub-prime market and not contribute further from their profitable arms of the business.
Totally agree Lloyd, anyone who believes the Provident SOA approval has no affect / impact on Amgo shouldn't be investing....
40% increase and no hair cut. That should protect shareholders
Question - has Provident's SP increased in the run-up to their SOA approval, have the PI's taken a hair cut to ensure that the creditor are treated fairly....
Absolutely agree Candlehead. Provident is a different situation - the business in question is being closed down, so the threat of "X/Y/Z or insovency" is a real one, rather than a randomly picked amount and a bluff.
The BOD still very much need to do their jobs and stop playing games with the FCA.
It's still positive, it's just not comparing apples to apples. It's barely comparing fruit to fruit.
Provident are closing ccd down, that was a massive swing in there favour for soa so personally i don’t think it’s done amigo any favours as they still want to lend and don’t have the fca on there side the way provident did
Fantastic news.....
Provident Financial plc
Scheme of Arrangement update
Provident Financial plc ('PFG' or 'the Group'), the leading provider of credit products to consumers who are underserved by mainstream banks, publishes an update on the Scheme of Arrangement ('the Scheme') proposed by Provident SPV Limited ('Company'), following the sanction hearing which took place at the High Court on 30 July 2021.
Scheme of Arrangement update
The sanction hearing for CCD's proposed Scheme was held at the High Court on 30 July 2021 and PFG is pleased to report that the Court's judgement was received today sanctioning the Scheme, following strong creditor approval.
PFG will now move forward with implementing the Scheme. The Scheme is expected to become binding by 5 August 2021 and to be implemented towards the end of August. Therefore, the deadline for the submission of claims is expected to be towards the end of February 2022. It is anticipated that all payments to creditors would have been made, and the Scheme will close, towards the end of 2022.
Malcolm Le May, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
"The Court has approved the sanctioning of CCD's Scheme, which is a positive outcome for CCD's customers with valid claims under the Scheme, as it provides access to a redress payment which would not have been possible had the Scheme not been approved. We believed from the outset that the Scheme was fair and that it offered the best outcomes for customers.
The Court sanction enables us to move forward with the Scheme and we expect that creditors will receive redress payments in the second half of 2022. As we have stated previously, the managed run-off of the CCD business is progressing well and we will provide the market with a further update as to how the Group is positioned for the remainder of 2021 and beyond with our interim results on 11 August 2021."
A couple of positive indicators this morning the formulation of the Committee & Provident news
Com on Amigo lets build on this now.
Keep the Faith my friends, the light will overcome darkness.
Good news guys