Member Info for LTHcine

We can all see Sara is a lying little scumbag. I still fail to see her motives? Is it just a path of destruction until she speaks to the manager?

"Shortfall for creditors payable in priority to unsecured creditors [Scenario 1] (£49m) [Scenario 2] (£36m). "

They would fall short of paying secured creditors, NO MONEY OR BALANCE ADJUSTMENTS for redress!!! Can't stress that enough.

https://www.amigoscheme.co.uk/docs/EstimatedOutcomeStatement.pdf

They can't just wipe all of the balances due, first they have to pay off the secured creditors. Which the Judge agreed would leave nothing to pay down customers redress. Meaning the debt would have to be sold and still only just manage to pay the secured creditors. It truly is vote for your money!

Yeah thats not what he meant, he meant you have a vote so use it. Or the outcome (wether you get redress or not) will be decided by the people who do use their vote.

Sorry Proveto i think we got wires crossed because i didnt say you were a paid deramper? We have seen a couple on here within last few days though, hopefully they are not getting paid too much seeing as they are not very good at it :P

There is a pattern forming here, as soon as we have good news. The paid derampers come on to brush it over like nothing has really changed. People start shytting the bed and basically self destruct the SP.

If you dont have confidence in your investments then you deserve to lose money, simply put. We will mop up your shares if you want to sell between here and 10p

Most of the hits on her website is from us checking what crap shes saying now

Scarpa50
Posted in: AMGO
Posts: 297
Price: 15.90

No Opinion
RE: Court Case Update
30 Mar 2021 15:40

Timmy,
go and eat your own face.

Is there anywhere to get a recording of the court proceedings? would love to listen to it to make sure but from what i read, i took away that the judge agreed there would be NO MONEY left over after paying secured creditors.

you missed Bank of America building over 6% stake and Jangho increasing again, yet SP goes down? yeah doesnt make much sense to me either ;) we are in a game, its called the long game :P

" If the Scheme doesn’t go ahead, Amigo will go into administration. In that case you can still make a claim and have your balance cleared. But there would be no cash refund. The unknown here is whether Amigo will uphold your claim in administration"

shes fully lost the plot, It was made clear in court that there would be no money left over in case of an insolvency to pay any claims. THAT MEANS NO BALANCE ADJUSTMENTS!! Shes actually so dense im surprised people listen to anything she says.

no worries TC101, that report was a good read highly recommend :P

TC101 - ill even direct you to the right section,

"1.30 In this context, looking to set a price cap across the whole of consumer credit, which some European nations do, would present significant challenges to assessing the impact on access. To apply across all credit without having a major impact on access, it would need to be set so high as to have little impact on most products."

TC101 - Read https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/woolard-review-report.pdf
if you havnt already

highly doubtful

"I do think if lending is to start again the regulators will probably cap interest to a lower amount, let’s say 30%"

Dont think so, are they going to spank all the bums of the lenders who charge 100%+ APR too? C'mon

Mark - "If enough customers do not vote for the scheme, it will not go ahead and Amigo will enter insolvency. This would mean customers with a valid redress claim will not receive any money back for their complaint."

Source - https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-9422681/Amigo-Loans-scheme-safeguard-survival-approved-High-Court.html

unift for purpose and increasing fees

https://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news/fos-to-increase-individual-case-fee-to-750/

“But the FOS does not seem to be getting the balance right. It is in danger of infantilising consumers, who are not expected to take responsibility for their decisions, and playing into the hands of claims management companies.

“This acts against the interests of consumers as a whole, and favours larger firms, who can afford to provide for unpredictable awards, at the expense of smaller and more innovative providers.”