You could apply to the court to get on the call - will post details AFTER if you don't believe me! Very odd thing to post. I even posted some text from it about not recording it etc, yesterday, to make I could do this.
Judge running through the parameters of the SOA i.e. the scheme figures (money AMGO will put in) duration (6 months), etc
Judge running through all the numbers for AMGO i.e. what money they have available to pay redress etc... He seems to be accepting that without the SOA they would go bust...
Judge has one question arising from the Debt Camel note... It assumes that future claims which haven't yet arisen will be barred. Judge understands this not to be the case. Only past claims will be barred if they miss the deadline. Future is different. Seems like the judge is summarising now... Could be a decision on here...
I was hoping someone else would have a login. I don't want to provide my court login to another - sorry. I am guessing there are people reading this board AND on the call who might be able to help out. But, now there is a recess, I might be able to make short, quick notes/updates when they come back. Was worried it would be a straight shot through to 4:30pm.
OPINION: Yes, I think the judge's 'manner' seems to be "let's get this done" as there seem to be no strong arguments not putting it to a vote. Other opinions may vary. He was very 'nice' and not dismissive of the people who spoke up about their loans but he moved them on swiftly as it didn't seem relevant to TODAY's decision. These points will, however, come out again at the next hearing. But I am fully confident in the outcome today. DYOR, not advice, etc, etc. Let's also what he says about Sara's 4.5 page note...
Ah, so might have missed it, guessing that means recess for 30mins [it has gone quiet]... Which is good as I am on another call!
Sara (Debt Camel) has provided a 4.5 page note of points she would like to make... Judge has asked for it to be sent to him and he will have a look at 3:25pm for 5mins.
They seem to be treading over old ground that Mr Dicker covered this morning, in answer to the questions from the gallery (effectively)...
Got to do some others things now... got it on in the background... will do my best but no promises :(
Can anyone take up the baton?
Judge notes that none of these points raised have covered 'new territory' but Mr Dicker (AMGO QC) is back now. He is going to go back and address the questions the judge raised around the explanatory statement. AMGO understands the need to ensure customers are properly informed. They acknowledge it may be desirable to do a little bit more. As to the mechanics; AMGO view is material on the website is much more likely to be accessed and read. The longer it is, the less suitable it is likely to be. Practical solution proposed; subject to the judge, AMGO and its legal advisors discuss and agree with RPC further FAQs that can be placed on the website, intending to ensure the questions that have been raised get an answer. They think the website is the best medium for this. Judge thinks it should be relatively easy to explain it all to ensure that people understand if they have a claim that they need to advance it "now". AMGO agree to "have a go to make it clear". Judge says summaries can be dangerous but "a couple of lines in a prominent place would really do some good". [seems like a compromise is being reached on wording and changes to make it even clearer]. 2nd concern is the distinction between guarantors and borrowers for voting purposes - answer to that is that it would be possible to identify those who were Gs and those that were Bs. AMGO propose to ensure that info is available and included in the report to the court at the sanction hearing. Judge - "thank you".
Mr. P now going to speak as a creditor. He is a current borrower. He has had his debt sold after the original term. [his english isn't great so I am trying my best]. It sounds like he tried to reach an agreement with AMGO to try and support him with repayments as he was having a hard time but AMGO didn't help and put it to the court and he must have got a judgement and lost his credit rating. So, he didn't seem happy. Judge has noted it and moved on... [inference being this is a very specific case]. Judge says one last call - Mr M is on the line now. Mr M is a current borrower and has 2 loans with AMGO. He thinks he may have a claim against AMGO because he didn't understand the small print of the loans, effectively. Judge asking him if he has anything to comment on what the judge needs to decide on today i.e. does he have a comment on the scheme going ahead. Mr M reiterates that he may struggle with the language and terminology. Mr A is now on the line. He is a guarantor. He is paying a loan off under the guarantee since 2018. The borrower was a fraudster who manipulated him. He told AMGO as the borrower never paid a penny. Mr A has made several complaints to AMGO and a criminal case against the borrower (fraudster) is ongoing as he took Mr A for thousands but, again, judge queries whether he has anything to say about the vote... he says "not really" but has also asked about clarity around interim payments. the judge is telling him that payments on loads do have to be made. Judge has stated his understanding it is the scheme or it is insolvency. Mr A-P now on the line... he was a borrower, now paid it off. At the time of getting the loan he says he was mis-sold. Took the loan after his master's degree when his salary was low. He felt it was a credit building, thus a good thing. However, it became unaffordable for him (to paraphrase). [suspect the judge will ask him again about what he needs to decide on TODAY. everyone is just giving their personal story]. Mr A-P took another loan from elsewhere to pay it off. The judge notes he wants this claim sorted out sooner rather than later.
A couple of points to finish... MR Beale has addressed these so far as he was able to do so. There is one particular area where they have seen repeated concern; what will AMGO do about enforcement of claims against borrowers pending outcome of the scheme, etc. Customers concerned that they need clarity about the way in which their ongoing obligations will be dealt with. Mr Dicker stated that legal obligations to pay back loans has to be complied with. Mr Dicker (AMGO QC) may say more about this when he comes back on. Still the RPC QC fella. If there are further points that Sara (Debt Camel) would like to make then she can put them in an email to RPC. RPC have performed an independent review and summarised for the purposes of this hearing [implying they can't pass on/present all information/protests/questions from all claimants to the court today]. Judge is saying that in the next recess, Sara could put the questions to the QC to put them to the judge for the later session. Judge asking if a scheme creditor or potential creditor would like to say anything (if they are on the call)... One guy is about to speak - Mr O, lets call him. Mr. O is an AMGO borrower (not guarantor) or 2 occasions. He has repaid both loans. Mr O understands the difficult situation AMGO is in and appreciates their support and having taken part in proceedings he does believe they have taken care to try and be as fair as possible based on the fact they may go insolvent. Mr O is pleased they are considering everyone who has ever had a loan as a potential claimant. That being said; he would like them to look into whether they could do "better" to inform people about who can claim, how to, who is eligible, etc. Done now. Judge made a note. Asking for anyone else...
A number of emails echo the same concern about AMGO assessing the redress claims themselves without oversight by a financial ombudsman. there is a repeated comment regarding whether or not this will lead to fewer complaints being accepted compared to those that would have been accepted under the financial ombudsman. However, the skilled persons report, the provision of an adjudicator and the new automated methodology and ability to review a negative outcome perhaps deals with that [to paraphrase]. In addition to concerns from customers about the fairness etc there were some comments from MSE that they thought the info would be difficult for creditors to understand. Suggestion made to accommodate that; more accommodating and welcoming language in the info, however it is noted that the company may have addressed that already. Also noted that finding the right balance is difficult. Debt Camel raises concerns on the website... QC directing the judge to read the comments made by Debt Camel, which effectively states the documentation could be clearer. [judge reading...]
RPC summary, most common complaint about adequacy of information provided to claimants was around the way AMGO would assess the claim. Concerns about the process AMGO would use to assess claims and the fact that AMGO themselves will be conducting that review. Mr Dicker (AMGO QC) highlighted the fact that there is now a much more developed explanation available in the explanatory statement vs when these complaints were made [suggestion being these have now been answered but are being shown to the judge for info]. [this is all quite stop-start as the judge is being directed to read the emails etc in the RPC document, so updates are slower at the moment... I am quiet because the call is quiet].
Ok, LSE has stopped refreshing for me so I hope this goes through... last messages I see now are from last night! Anyway... back to the hearing... Nothing more to be said about creditor or relevant media comments on classes. Now onto procedural issues. No real suggestion from creditors that they were being prejudiced by the timetable and had inadequate time/notice. Bounce back messages were small in number and has been covered already in the earlier proceedings. QC wants to flag the fact that there is some degree of confusion about the scheme process. Some creditors seem to be operating under a degree of confusion as to what the process is. [point seems to be though that it can't be expected for every last person to understand every last point]. On MSE website - expressed surprised that the total number of emails received were not higher since they thought the group was ~600k [may have missed a bit here]. MSE asking if there is a better way to make sure AMGO catch everyone to let them know about the SOA. Concern from Debt camel is slightly different; whether there is sufficient time being given to creditors to consider the substance of the scheme. 3 months might be a better timeline, to paraphrase. However, that is not a direction. All the QC can do is point out that that is a comment (the timeline) but acknowledges there is no limit or otherwise and no right answer, effectively. That's it on procedural. Now onto scheme document adequacy. Concerns being voiced at the moment, acknowledging "its an art" to get the documents perfect, will be addressed in future updates (i.e. updating Q&A as mentioned earlier). RPC have pointed out that there are concerns that some claimants may not know they have a valid claim, effectively, particularly due to added interest at the end of a loan. A different type of complaint to pure affordability. If such claims are to be dealt with under the scheme, all creditors should be made aware of their rights under the SOA [point being AMIGO should do more to find and tell people who can claim]. This goes back to the bar date and whether it is fair i.e. the 6 months before it closes to new claims and it's ringfenced.
Yeah, I don't hold the shares to join... but my humbleness precludes me from telling you about my yacht :D
And we're back on... they're talking about letting Sara (Debt Camel) speak or not. Basically, the judge is being told she and others would like to speak. The judge is saying that Ms. Williams is not a creditor and it's not an open platform (to paraphrase) so I don't think she'll be allowed to speak. The QC is saying they are not seeking to exclude people, it's just that they are giving a summary today. [I guess making the point that he is sure lot's would like to speak but there is no need/time at this stage]. Sara was questioning the RPC summary of emails from creditors saying she had been misrepresenting. QC saying RPC have summarised in good faith and directed the judge to read some extracts again. Which he is doing, so it is quiet for now...
Yes, the vote effectively takes some time as people vote remotely... dates are in my early postings around 11am. I suspect leaks will be tightly controlled but were they to come, they would only be indicative before the final count. I can't see the BOD risking buys/sells in that period (maybe it is closed) as it would look very insidery!
Agreed - those early points were the main ones for me, albeit they reiterated what we already know. Amigo say they'll go bust without the SOA and PWC appear to agree. FCA seem to be suggesting they are happy to let it to go to a vote. Other interpretations are available. I am not sure I fully understand why but the alternative views, although presented to the court, are not for the courts consideration. So, to not let it go to a vote would appear to require the court to go against PWC findings and the FCA (to some extent). I am simply not sure I see that happening. However, it could and investors need to be aware of that. Basically; should the court allow the creditors a right to decide their fate with a vote? I feel confident the judge won't take that right away from them. However, yes, I do see a world where there may need to be tweaks around class but it feels like something that would never, ever be fair anyway and cost everyone time and money, further risking insolvency. It MAY look better to just go - "lets take it to a vote". No need to thank me as it may clog up the board. Like I say, I'll be busy after 3pm on other things so may struggle to catch the end. Hopefully someone else is on the call and can step in? However, I am happy that the right noises have been already to keep me calm and invested. Others may see it the opposite way and you need to make your own minds up. I can see why the share price has gone up but i completely see why others are waiting. If there is a decision after hours, I guess it will come in an RNS and we'll either open in the morning massively up or... down. Or, maybe a decision won't be for a while. I don't know. Someone else might.