Member Info for Mousekewitz

LTH, when I bought my shares, I knew there was no divi and I haven't expected any for quite a while either. Hence I have nothing to offer to the FCA and I think the same may be the case for most in here.

Good morning Amigos,

can anyone more experienced with the situation of trading of shares being suspended explain the procedure for trading to start again? I was shocked at how fast trading could be suspended. The RNSs said that this suspension would remain until the judge has ruled and Amigo would then request for the suspension to get lifted. How long will this take? Will there be a warning or will it just suddenly start again. I imagine the moment trading starts again will be x-times more hectic than anything we have experienced so far.
Thx

Isn't trying to sway a judge illegal? I wouldn't want to do that. If he can't see for himself what the FCA is doing, he is not worth being in a robe.

Thanks for the Tom, LTH, I have another ducktail before I go to bed.

Yes, viking. I've already taken out my initial investment plus some profit, but I feel for those who are not on such a 'free ride' and it still hacks me off that they might effectively cost me. None of us shareholders are doing something illegal or unethical by being invested in Amigo. In fact, the vast majority only invested after the company's shares ditched dramatically, thus have nothing to do with the ongoings that led to this in the first place. There is nothing wrong with trying to be successful on the stock exchange and ramping and de-ramping is part of the game. It's the same as positive and negative advertisements in the corporate world. We all did our research, we were all aware of the risk and that it is to some stage unpredictable. A good way to judge that we are not all totally off our heads, is the fact, that many of us have traded to secure our initial investments and gather some profits. What none of us seem to have added to the calculation is the FCA acting like rogue traders. Might be worth researching if they've done this in the past. To me it comes across as if they're hell-bent on destroying the financial sector.

LTH, they lured people into a false sense of security, then pounced like nasty beady-eyed, furry creatures with the naked tails. I have already had my rant about the FCA. What I can't get over is that by there action of saying they wouldn't act, they have manipulated the SP, to then use that in court against the scheme, thus tricked the judge, did a huge disservice to the people they claim to protect from financial harm and I don't understand how they can away with it. Now they want to fleece shareholders. Brilliant! Very unethical, but brilliant. What I will never understand is how they can have the audacity to keep abusing the word 'fairness'. I just hope the judge sees through their backstabbing scheming and allows The Scheme.

carsgeek, well... I think the FCA was asking for the involvement of the shareholders, or not? Now they get it.

Stevie, here: kate.patrick@amigoloans.co.uk

oct21 - aug21 is backwards

Here, for all to choose whatever they want to stress in their emails:

"I understand from the hearing today that the Judge is really unhappy with the Binary position presented with lack of tangible back up. Why wasn’t the fact that the Securitisation facility has a temporary waiver on the performance triggers which I presume are events of default? If not waived I believe this means the facility goes in to run down and from memory I think the loan balance is about £90m secured on I am sure a loan balance much higher. 1.4/5 times the £90M?

Then the question is what happens with the secured bond. I am guessing there is no cross default, but what about cross acceleration?? and is there a MAC clause??. If you can’t rely on a MAC when one facility is in acceleration, when can you? You can be sure the Secured Bond holders will be reviewing this documentation in detail to see what their options are.

I suspect the temporary waiver is to end June so there is real urgency. If I was a Secured lender and you were suggested to by the court to negotiate again there is no way I would allow you spend any more of my cash. Why wasn’t this made clear to the Court? The FCA gave the impression there is no urgency, no trigger and loads of cash and the real tangible card you had supporting the Boards view on Insolvency was not even mentioned, never mind said over and over and over again.

The ridiculous situation with this whole circus is that the Secured Lenders, given the temporary waiver, are really in control whether the Court likes it or not. The FCA stance was incompetent and you had a real opportunity to show them up for their lack of understanding which you let pass.

I haven’t seen anything other than the extension to June 25th 2021. If I was this lender(s) there is no way I would agree to the Board spending yet more of my secured cash on another merry go round with the FCA or anyone else. I don’t understand why this wasn’t presented over and over again. Does your lawyer understand the way the funding is structured. If my “outside” analysis is right, this is grossly incompetent."

Jonshare, What compromise are you talking about?

Senator, could you not apply to GJ to join the team ;-)

Hi Fig :-)
great to read you again :-)

GL on your investments

Aren't Bybrook, JPM and MIC not institutions? As far as I know, they're still in it.

I suppose so, just could serve a really nice ducktail. Sorry, can't write the correct word of the drink :-)

shaggers, I did a similar strategy, but I'm still cheesed off

FN2187 Oh I do have thought, but the script in here would ****** them out ;-)

Guesty, wrong! We were lured into thinking the path is concrete and the sirens who lured us believing that are called F, C and A ;-) . It was them who piped up the last moment and ripped holes into the path.

Robbo... didn't you read the argument in regards of the creditors (the borrowers)? According to the FCA these people are as thick as mince, need independent legal advisors to explain to them what they are voting for and are intellectually disadvantaged. What point would it have made to send them a letter explain their arguments? :-)

Nothing we don't already know.