The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
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.
Johanes - I was also using Reyker Securities as a custodian.
I'm not sure this helps in any dispute as with no custodian in place NQ Minerals could claim it was difficult to contact note holders. Conversely, note holders could legitimately claim being unsighted to any debt restructuring plans and not being able to vote. It would be interesting to hear from others whose notes where held with other companies to see if they were contacted about the restructuring.
I find it astonishing 95-98% of note holders would agree to a plan that subordinated their senior holdings, thereby dramatically increasing risk to their investment. That's just crazy.
Best wishes.... Bugerov.
@prads, so you never received yours ? Did you use Reyker as custodian ?
The issue we had, Reyker went bust during this event occurred. So bit challenging to get past information.
I really don't think that is true. I have not heard of any note holder resolutions being passed to investors. Subordinating existing note holders without a resolution is a serious "no no" as far as I'm aware. I suspect the ING funding line they took on meant that they (ING) insisted on being senior, presumably with full security over Hellyer however this should have been agreed by way of a resolution first!
@Nickkdog , From Bedfordrow side, and David Lenigas claimed that all the bondholders are already being given the chance to vote regarding this subordination on the collateral. David said the approval rate was 95%-98% from the bondholders (which I think its BS, since that subordination don't do any good to bondholder).
I have never received any of that information and they both blamed the investment platform that I used for not passing that voting information. I use Custodian Life Bermuda, whereby their custodian is Reyker Securities which went bust in 2020.
I'm wondering what investment platform did you use for this audley funding transaction ?
And did any other investment platform get that information or chance to vote ?
hi, I have just joined as a member, I noticed you were also a bond holder with NQ MINERALS through Audley funding. I have been treated appallngly by Audley funding, all phone call ignored and emails ignored. I wondered if you have any advice for us poor, shocked and disillusioned bond holders. kind regards, miss diane hughes.
Shame on the Australian authorities for not launching a criminal investigation. Not sure I will invest in Aussi activities again
Bugerov - thanks for your comments. I got the exact same automated reply when I wrote to ir@audleyfundingcom . To me this sums up the position of those who set up the subordination of Audley bonds and have moved on: your debt has been downgraded via a shareholder meeting, fait accompli! Unfortunately, I don't think any, or at least very many, of the noteholders knew about the shareholder meeting at 1 Bedford Row ahead of time. By the way, Bedford Row 1 is now vacant. According to someone who answered the door, Bedford Row Capital sends someone around once a week to pick up mail. If you look up Audley Funding Plc. on the FCA website you get a response that nothing can be found about this company. If you input Bedford Row Capital, the people who structured the Audley Funding bond, you get a notice they are no longer registered with the FCA and there is a warning. Not encouraging.
Prads - thanks again for your input. I believe Audley Funding Plc and Bedford Row Capital are the same bunch in fact. Bedford Row Capital and specifically, slevy@bedfordrowcapital.com and later directors@bedfordrowcapital were put forward by the Administrators as the contacts for the Audley Funding bond which I hold. Scott Levy, CEO, wrote back after the 3rd attempt and very curtly told me I had been misinformed by the Administrators, Begbies Traynor. Several emails to directors@ went unanswered.
I wonder about several issues but the most pressing for me is do we noteholders have any legal recourse. I was never contacted by Audley, Bedford Row or my broker who bought the bond for me about the resolution to subordinate the Audley debt. Two agents I know who were selling the bond had no idea about a resolution to subordinate the Audley debt either. I wonder if any noteholder was sent the proposed resolution (Apr 9, 2020) and notified of the shareholder meeting in advance (May 1, 2020). I wonder, is that required or is a public announcement via RNS enough to cover them legally? I believe Audley Funding / Bedford Row and NQ Minearals / Lenigas most certainly acted in an underhanded and unethical manner. Unfortunately, that is likely not illegal. However, if indeed due process was not followed because we and other noteholders were not directly informed in advance, is there some action we might take to reverse the subordination?
Well technically that is correct. Audley is a creditor of NQ Minerals, as they have raised proceeds from the issuance and then lent the money to NQ Minerals. I still think however that, as the issuer of the notes, they have an obligation to communicate and agree changes in the security package with investors. The one thing that appears to be unequivocal however, is that the management team of NQ have acted without integrity (putting it mildly) and have ultimately prejudiced noteholders, by subordinating the Audley debt.
Good afternoon. I received an e-mail response from 'donotreply@audleyfunding.com'. I basically asked for confirmation of subordination, highlighting I was aware of the debt restructuring, but the circular I saw didn't mention any subordination. The response opened with apologies this is a standard letter. Rest of e-mail and link to the relevant doc as follows:
'The situation of NQ is far from resolved and remains in the hands of restructuring specialists who have an obligation to report progress as part of the administration process.
Audley Funding is a creditor of NQ minerals and will be in close contact with the restructuring team at Begbies as the matter works through the processes required to determine the future of the company.
Audley Funding will keep an eye on developments and be part of discussions as to the future of the company. At this point, it is too early to tell what the outcome will be for investors.
Investors in Audley Funding have the security set out as described in the most recent noteholders meeting'
https://audleyfunding.com/onewebmedia/Audley%20funding%20plc%20-%20series%202017-F2%20-%20Notice%20to%20Noteholders%20-%2009.04.2020.pdf
I'm no expert in these matters so can't really add any comment of value at this stage.
Regards..... Bugerov
Thanks Prads - your response was a very interesting take on things. I will see if I can find out anything from the FCA about their jurisdiction.
I guess the question is, what can or should one do in the face of this slight-of-hand subordination of our bonds?
Cheers
Burgerov - I will be happy to share what I can. I've only gone to their site to have a look and at the moment I'm considering what route to take to contact them. I may start with a call.
Have you had any experience contacting the FCA? I admit this will be my first time.
cheers
Unfortunately not sure this is under the FCA's jurisdiction so you may will not get any joy there. This is a legal issue. Audley cannot agree to their own resolution though. If you issue debt in the public markets and you want to change something material about the offer post-issuance, you would usually need NOTEHOLDER resolution which usually requires a quorum of 75% or more. It seems that Audley haven't followed due process here and that is the main issue.
Nickkdog - if you do contact FCA could you share your e-mail on here? I'd be tempted to use it as a template to write to them myself.
Best wishes.
Prads, I have done a bit more digging and it would appear that, unfortunately, it would appear the bond debt was subordinated prior to the ING loan. I only knew about the Resolutions of Mar /Apr 2020 after the fact, about the time the ING "restructuring" loan was announced . Audley knew and endorsed it but I never received anything from Audley or the broker who sold it to me. I'm considering contacting the FCA.
I found a shareholder resolution that was put forward in Mar and Apr of 2020. This called for subordination of the Audley Funding debt - endorsed it seems by Audley Funding PLC. The ING facility was July 2020 so it could be the loan came on the bank of the subordination. If so, it was in my opinion at least underhanded. Legal? No idea but I'd say the financial low life's behind this would have made sure there arses were covered. Indeed, if we have been subordinated - and I'm not 100% sure yet - then, indeed, appalling.
I have written, Begbies Traynor, Bedford Row Capital, Audley Funding Plc. as well as others and all I can say is that they have circled the wagons and are hiding behind the legal gagging caused by the administration process.
New to this forum but as a debt investor I am appalled with what's happened. When I initially invested, the bond had senior security over the underlying assets and somewhere along the line we seem to have been subordinated....I assume to ING when their debt facility came in. Now if something like that happened, surely this should have gone to a note holder resolution of some sort?! You can't just subordinate bondholders without notifying them!
The contents of the documents in the "standard letter" are shocking reading for me. Basically, it seems that Leni proposed subordinating all Audley claims to assets. Basically wiping out what we paid for and signed up for which was an "investment grade", "asset back" bond. What horrified me is that it appears (and I am no expert let it be said) is that the odious resolution was endorsed by Audley. I believe even with turning over / subordinating bondholder guarantees no bank would go along with it, hence, administration. A real lesson for me, this entire ongoing ....I'm at a loss as to what to call it ....at least on a public forum.
Bugerov, and any others. I just wrote to Audley Funding Plc at ir@audleyfunding.com and received back just now an email that starts "I apologise that this is a standard letter ....". The email at least tells me that they indeed will represent the debt of the Audley Funding bonds and are in touch and monitoring things with Begbies Traynor. If anyone is interested, one can write at that address and I'm sure receive the detailed reply from Audley Funding Plc. It is at least something.
Bugerov, thanks very much for the information which is, regrettably, what I am learning. Which is that there is very little information that is easy to be had. I am hoping my broker can learn more but at the outset, again like you, they know less than I. I have learned from one source at Begbies Traynor that the Audley Funding Plc bond may be held at Truva Trustees (and gave me an email address) but when I wrote them they failed to tell me if they indeed were where the bonds were domiciled. I am trying to find out who will represent the debt with the Administrators. I've just now written ir@audleyfunding.com who Truva says I should contact because they are "...in discussion with the administrator and best placed to provide you with the relevant information. ". I will post here if I learn anything.
Nickkdog. No sadly, heard nothing. I spoke to my broker about a week ago who knew less than I did. I couldn't find anything on Begbies Traynor's website, so e-mailed them (yesterday) for the latest and to ask where updates can be found as the situation develops. I'll share any response on here.
I found the following (unsurprising statement) re the dividend due to be paid ~27 Aug on www.investegate.co.uk:
'The Issuer announces that interest due on the Series 2017-F2 Notes on 27 August 2021 has not been made to holders of the Series 2017-F2 Notes.
The assets and security backing the Series 2017-F2 Notes is described in the Investment Memorandum dated 14 May 2018 as supplemented and amended in the manner described in the notice to Noteholders dated 9 April 2020 and principally consists of loans and related security made by the Issuer to NQ Minerals PLC (the "Borrower").
As a result of the non-payment of amounts by the Borrower to the Issuer, the Issuer currently has insufficient funds to meet its obligations under the Series 2017-F2 Notes.'
Regards... Bugerov
Would be very interested to hear from other investors who bought NQ bonds, Audley Funding and others. I have tried to write to the company, Bedford Row Capital, that the Administrators, Begbies Traynor, have told bond holders of Audley to write to but after 3 attempts and no answer from them, I am wondering what the hell is going on. Does anyone have any info?
I know from your earlier posts Bugerov that you were a bondholder. Have you heard anything?
Yes I wonder if someone could be in trouble for obtaining credit or even money from investors knowing the company to be insolvent. Leni would have known, pr if he didn't he should have.
By the end of September we should know the size of the debt.
Hi Guys. David Lenigas has come a cropper AGAIN. I got involved with him over Lenigas gas & oil out in Trinidad. Surprisingly, that’s still going, but not with him on board. Likewise, NQ Minerals. On paper, it looked good, & Lenigas talked it up well. Even the last figures for Helier, assuming that they’re accurate, were good, with a reported profit of 5 million, or so, Australian Dollars. This failure raises very big questions, of which Lenigas must take his full share of culpability for its failure. Answers, FULL answers, are needed, & must be given to the investors. If criminality is involved, then those guilty, should be investigated, & prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No excuses, no fudging, we want answers. H.
I feel that however difficult it may be, avoid DL at all costs. He has Rhino skin and is full of the brown stuff. Can he put his head on the pillow and say to his nearest and dearest that they should be proud of his days work. Probably. But would they be? I doubt it. That is what he has to live with. We the losers of cash still have our dignity but can sleep at night.
I had a letter from my broker yesterday, looks like that is it. What I do not understand is how can they pull the plug and yet still keep mining?
I hope his next dump is a porcupine.