Member Info for CreativeNE

08:45 - "Importantly Salivery gland is the first indictaion that we WILL be taking forward with a partner"

Sent

Freshfields

Maybe my lack of understanding but the RNS stated:

715 creditors, who have registered to attend the creditors' meeting on the 12 May 2021 and 373 proxies that have been nominated to vote on a creditor's behalf, will be able to vote at the creditors' meeting...

Anyone have thoughts on why the numbers changed so little?

Online vote
For: 74,866
Against: 3,862

Creditors meeting
For: 74,877 (+11)
Against: 3,863 (+1)

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/11/amigo-loans-rescue-in-doubt-after-fca-says-it-will-object-in-court?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

The City stockbroker Shore Capital said in a note to clients that if the FCA was to be successful in stopping the scheme going ahead, “this would likely see an even worse outcome for claimants, thus defeating its own objective”.
It added: “We think the FCA likely knows this and therefore is simply trying to be seen to do the right thing.”

Never did quite understand the target SP of 40p, however hopefully GJ has factored this is as room for negotiation, increases LTIP’s to 80p (arbitrary figure), then upside for everyone including creditors who get 15% of a bigger pot.

The FCA stated in March that they would not oppose the SOA based on the information available at the time of writing. At the time, that included the initial pot amount, further contributions, the %age of future profits, the LTIP's and anything else that was out there in the public domain. So it doesn't make sense that, to me anyway, why they would now call into question the contribution value from shareholders, as it was made very clear at the time.
One can only presume something more has come to light, just not entirely sure what. Surely if they were acting in the interest of creditors they would be duly obligated to attend the Scheme creditors meeting to provide substantiated evidence as to why it should not be passed at this stage; not wait until the sanction meeting? Feels very much like posturing in order to not set precedent.
Anyway, most LTH's sat on a good ROI and SP as where it was 5 days ago. Had it not been for the rise to 30p this would have been considered a favourable SP the day before the creditors meeting 6 weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/goldengreek8/status/1392124700277489666

You have to love it. Just making a cool couple of hundred grand on a good day while some try to question him. Wonder who’s laughing now....

Great RNS, very clear, however wouldn't have been able to get an understanding of how it went, feelings towards the scheme, comments raised from all parties and creditors etc. without ISA taking the time out to keep us updated, very grateful.

Also in terms of vote, the context of todays hearing helped a lot in terms of how i think the vote will go - the creditors seemed to raise some good questions about variations to outocme based on individual cases rather than using it as air time or querying what ifs.
Timmy suggesting single figures in the pound, only for GJ to propose 'AMGO will contribute 38.85p for every £1 up to a max of £20M', couldn't write it, brilliant.

Thank you ISA, this is much appreciated and helpful for all not able to be in the call.

Spelling; I thought auto correct was supposed to help :)

Pausing* lending,
Have in* store.

Would this not suggest lending in May at the earliest? The SOA will be ‘ongoing’ for the 6 month complaints period plus continue to pay over the next 4 years, so there is no definitive timeline on based on running concurrently. However given we have not been lending for a while, it would make sense to continue to put this on hold for 4 weeks until the SOA vote has passed. It doesn’t seem logical to lend to lend now, when technically the business could go into insolvency in 4/5 weeks time, financially it doesn’t have a huge impact, and also doesn’t fit with GJ’s principles of passing lending until this is fixed; it only becomes fixed when it is voted in.

Also GJ has said multiples times (even prior to SOA announcement), the plan is to start lending in Q1, I’m under the impression this is in relation the the FY rather than calendar, therefore would indicate April-June, so everything lining up nicely and this has been the plan since his appointment.

Either way, excited for what the next couple of weeks have inch store

Couldn’t agree more CN, take peoples personal agendas out, this should be a space to share information and discuss possibilities, both positive and negative. Not sure it works that way though..!!

That’s an interesting point LTHcine, I’ve tried to work through a number of scenarios whereby average redress is split amongst all valid complainants and compared against the current average redress. Can’t get to them figures, although there are a lot more knowledgeable members here who may be able to shed some light.

I hadn’t seen this, so thanks, no apologies required here.

It’s clear from the closing SP that people were able to read between the lines. The FCA have a position to hold, whereby they cannot accept a proposal which benefits one party more than another. On that basis they raise a concern that “customers with valid redress claims in the scheme stand to receive significantly less than the value of their claims”, whilst also not opposing the scheme as they are aware this could result in insolvency.

They must, as an impartial party, raise this concern as it is holistically part of the reasoning for their existence. But also it’s worth noting the wording around customers ‘stand’ to receive less, rather than ‘will’, suggesting they are still very much in communication and open to further negotiations.

Caveat: my personal opinion.

The FCA are going back and reviewing lending practices in order to make a decision on the SOA. If....they weren’t in a position to approve due to serious malpractice there would be no requirement to review what the new board have implemented... it would be a simple no, end of.
If, however, on the other hand they were happy in principal to approve and wanted to check the credentials of the new BoD (as this may set precedent) then yes, they absolutely have to increase the scope. But no reason to increase it if it was already doomed.

From my understanding, but I have been wrong, I think your interpretation is right. It’s appears to be part of the formal process. The request to the high court to allow a creditor meeting to go ahead is procedural, it it didn’t get passed its most likely time to get out; if it does, then nothing much changes. IMO.

Hopefully, less hidden agendas and just some sensible balanced views and discussions around the fundamentals and risk vs reward.

I’m not sure the backlog led to increased complaints being upheld, reports in the FT suggest each case was costing £950 to investigate against the £650 they were getting, inferring the screening process was not adhered to and complaints that should have had no standing were being referred to specialist for ‘investigation’. Either way, same outcome. If supporting the SoA gets a large percent of claims off the desk and helps clear the backlog, it would seem sensible to support it and recommend its implementation.