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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Agree with that but aren’t we talking about a sum of money for the whole repayment that I thought we’d already put aside ? Someone put this up a few months back that the average payout would be low and potentially well save on the deal. Any truth in that ? Sorry I can’t remember who posted it.
The court aren't stupid and are above the politics that the FCA are subject to. 95% is so overwhelming that I think its rather tough for the FCA to win this and totally block the scheme. They could have done that easily by now and haven't because they need to balance customer fairness with the needs of the economy. They aren't trying to oppose the scheme in its entirety regardless of how the press report it. They want to find the balance that in their eyes is missing. To ask Shareholders to put more in...well how exactly?? diluting the shares to make a scheme better will take until next year to do. Only option is to offer more future money in pot so thats all we're negotiating on. 1000% confident thats where we're at. Chuck another 5% in and the FCA can be seen to have played their role.
The bit that amazes me is how many people across all the platforms are surprised by the FCA’s stance … this was known back in March ??? Today has been good news and confirmation of old news. Do people even do any research anymore? Or have the GameStop “ stonks only go up “ mentality taken over entirely?
I did wonder when JPM and Bybrook got involved what their motives was and a seat at the big boys table in those circumstances would make sense. Rights issues have been done before amidst a volatile background but like I said I just don’t see it.
Hi Mark, the SP isn't stable enough to do a raise either is it?? Perhaps bybrook and JPM will clear us out and then buy up the shares of us PI's nice and cheap, refinance and the enjoy the ride thereafter? I won't dismiss it but seems highly disruptive and against what creditors want. 95% YES tells me that most of them didn't have much to complain about and want any money they can lay their hands on cos its free and unexpected.
There's not going to be a fund raise. This would take months and months at great expense to do hence its never been on the table. The business would fold before that ever got the light of day and has been discounted as a route. We'll up the pot to 20% IMO.
It is only right that the company is not allowed to fail. It should be kept in operation and future profits used to meet the amounts due to creditors over a period of years. Dividends should not be allowed until reasonable creditors' claims have been met. If the company fails creditors will receive less than would otherwise be possible and administration would cost millions that would reduce creditor payments even more. Hope the judge will analyse the business plan and key assumptions to validate the projected future profits and possible future creditor payments. A win win solution is possible in spite of the useless FCA.
FCA notified Amigo and SchemeCo after market close on 23 March 2021 that, having completed its assessment of the terms of the Scheme, while the FCA does not support the Scheme, it is not currently proposing to take any additional regulatory action that might stop the Scheme were it to be agreed by the Scheme creditors and sanctioned by the Court, but the FCA reserves the right to change its position. This is based on information currently made available to the FCA, including the skilled persons report, relating to the Scheme, which is in the process of finalisation. The Scheme creditors are Amigo's 700,000 past customers, 300,000 present customers and the Financial Ombudsman Service (the 'FOS'). 24th March 2021 let the judge look at this statement from fca
The FCA are just covering there own arse. They have probably had lots of complaints from Sarah and people from debt camel. And when all this goes threw and approved it would look bad on FCA if people never got what the expect. At least if they put up a token objection then no one can blame them if it goes pair shaped for the customers. Its obvious FCA dont want Amigo to fail or they would have brought this letter out before voting had finished. They know the judge wont stop this now because its the customers who have voted yes. Read between the lines, Amigo is more or less telling us the outcome of the vote in that RNS today. Hold them golden tickets
Judges hate wasted court time ! I believe they knew this was coming and there is a little sweetener (prob at shareholders expense) being worked on. The only issue is any proposed deal would need approval....again.
The court hearing of the scheme takes place on 19 May, and my guess is it will still be successful. Even if the FCA thinks the deal is unfair, 95% of creditors appear to be happy with it. And they’ll get nothing if the company goes bust. I’d be surprised to see the court going against the clearly-expressed wishes of creditors and forcing a worse outcome.
As the FCA are required to sign off if we are to lend again I suspect the BOD are stewing over how they can position themselves before next week to stand the best chance of getting through the court case. The risk is that even if it does pass the court, the FCA can delay is lending again.