If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
@BillClinton some of us are wondering if you would like to join us on a whatsapp group. Your interesting takes have us intrigued. What say you?
BillClinton, just looking at Keystone, indeed it looks as if Alper Deniz is a partner. However, they seem to have a lot of lawyers on the staff - a very large firm. I am afraid they will say Mr Deniz was not part of the drafting of the covenants and consent mechanisms. That he now serves on Truva as a appointed nominee. Could the claim they have ring fenced all this within their firm. I am afraid they will likely do so and if so, very difficult to prove otherwise.
Having said that, it stinks to high heaven. But if that were a crime the entire City of London would be in the box.
Thanks for this info BillClinton. You have done quite some digging and it seems very valuable. So what do you suggest we noteholders do about it? Got any advise?
Madmaxx3000 - good idea writing FCA about Avenir. I've been writing them and others about them and Truva Trustees who I also believe are FCA regulated.
Thanks to you all for your input. Glad to see we have a few new participants.
I too have wondered how a conservative, large Dutch bank could have stepped into this dung hill. I also believe that they are a sophisticated group and would not have extended this loan to this type of company unless handed questionable accounts/info. I believe a letter to the link Johanes kindly gave us for Netherlands financial regulators is a good idea and one I will follow up on.
I am very interested to read this "there is absolutely legal grounds for the subordination to be deemed invalid for lack of consideration" from BillClinton. I had not known that and can't help but wonder if this is also the case in the UK. Can anyone offer an opinion on this?
Some of us are "gathering" on a whatsapp site. This vote was rigged in my view. I've yet to hear from a noteholder who was informed in advance of the vote on May 1, 2020 to subordinate our assets. I don't think we should go quietly.
As I said in an earlier post we need to find a way to get this to the press I believe. If this story has legs it will be picked up by some journalist and that wouldn't hurt at all. You could start with a small paper the Tasmanian Examiner who have been following the NQ story. Could you share this info with a business correspondent at a major London paper?
LatvianPrince - this is really remarkable information! Can you take it to a public outlet, particularly the press. Somehow this information must reach more people.
Bugerov, Nath123, dianejane01, et al., I have now been in touch with Johanes off site via whatsapp. I encourage you all to consider joining in this exchange by writing to the email Johanes has provided. I think we should share ideas more openly than we might here. In my view, we need to do some writing to relevant UK (and possibly Ausie agencies) to get the word out that there are noteholders who believe they have been dealt with in an abusive and possibly fraudulent manner. I have written to Begbies Traynor, the FCA and others. I encourage you all to do the same. The word needs to get out. Perhaps we can even consider some joint action. What that is I don't know but I for one do not want to take this lying down like a sheep led to slaughter.
Johanes, I have been thinking that it would be good to find a way to reach out to more Audley Funding noteholders. How do we get the word out? I wonder, how many of us are there who likewise were blindsided by the subordination?
I have also been wondering about an alternative way of getting in touch where we perhaps could share ideas more openly. Whatsapp? its encrypted they tell me. It would mean exchanging phone numbers I guess. Not really sure what might be the best way. I'm open to ideas.
What I meant in my earlier post is that there is an 8 week period before Begbies Traynor as Administrators will need to publish (publicly I believe) their plan for how NQ Minerals should be administered. That could be to seek to refinance (let us hope!!) or to wind up the company, in which case this could take a long time with who-knows what results.
Still nothing back from my email to Truva Trustees.
Has any contacted or is anyone considering contacting the FCA?
Johanes, Bugerov, et al., I received the same reply from Begbies Traynor as you did. I also wrote to Truva Trustees again on Oct 8 as I have been in contact with them in the past. Part of what I wrote was "Did Truva Trustees receive the April 9, 2020 notice on the date of its issuance? Further, did Truva then inform any noteholders of this April 9 notice?" They have not answered yet. I suspect they are going to hide behind the custodians or registrars and say they were responsible for informing noteholders. About all I can hold hope out for is this statement from BT: "The Joint Administrators will be undertaking investigations into the affairs of the Company." If not a smokescreen, then perhaps they will look into and question. I can not give in to full blown pessimism just yet, although the outlook does look dark. We will know more soon I think as there is an 8 week window from the date of the announced Administration and that day must be fast approaching.
I have just now written Begbies Traynor, Administrators of NQ Minerals. Here is part of what I wrote: "I am a noteholder of Audley Funding Plc. Over the last month and more, I have been trying to find out how the vote of May 1, 2020 turned out in favour of subordination of the senior debt of the Audley Funding Plc noteholders. I am in touch with a good few noteholders, and not one of them, not a single noteholder that I have contacted, received this notification of April 9, 2020: https://audleyfunding.com/onewebmedia/Audley%20funding%20plc%20-%20series%202017-F2%20-%20Notice%20to%20Noteholders%20-%2009.04.2020.pdf." I also questioned what logic would cause 95 to 98% of noteholders to destroy the value of their assets. It makes no sense.
I concluded by saying this "I respectfully request that Begbies Traynor examines the minutes of the May 1, 2020 meeting at Bedford Row 1 to see that 1) the vote was in fact to subordinate noteholder senior debt of Audley Funding Plc noteholders 2) a quorum was duly assembled to constitute a legal vote and 3) who voted, were there proxy documents and would this number constitute a legally defined quorum.
I ask all this because in the very near term you will be proposing a course of action with regard to the Administration of NQ Minerals Plc. If it is to sell off assets, I think you should know that there are some Audley Plc noteholders who believe the reassignment of senior debt to ING Bank may have been done in a manner that did not follow due process with respect to informing noteholders and in the manner of the vote by the Audley Funding Plc. I would respectfully ask that Begbies Traynor examine this issue so that the Administrators of NQ Minerals can be totally sure how assets should be assigned."
I would ask that any of you so inclined also write Begbies Traynor. Soon is best as they will put out their recommendations very soon.
Johanes et al., Sorry to have been away from the site for a while. I have been doing more digging in the meantime however. Bear with me then as I may need to go on a bit. First I think the statement by Lenigas that 95 -98% (so which was it 95% or 98%)of bondholders voted is very very suspicious. And after looking into him a bit more I wouldn't believe a word that comes from his mouth. I would like to see the particulars or the minutes of the vote at Bedford Row 1 on May 1 where this supposedly unanimous vote took place.
Like others I don't know anyone who received prior notice including the company who introduced me to the Audley bonds. Meanwhile I contacted Hermione Markets who were the master distributor for Audley Funding Plc bonds. I did get good feed back including the following: "Most stockbrokers engage custodians to provide dealing execution and administrative services - Reyker used a company called Jarvis, many stockbrokers use Pershing. Audley are adamant that the proper procedures were followed and that all relevant information was sent out to the custodians. I know this was a problem as many actual investors did not receive any notification about the voting. We did notify intermediaries that the vote was taking place but some did not chase the custodians for the information or notify investors to contact the custodians for the information. I know it is of no benefit, but I have since discovered that many custodians do not as a matter of course forward information - a fact which I (probably like you) find incredible. "
Incredible indeed. Looks like a case of pass the baton. I find it astonishing actually that the UK FSA allows this. I also used Reyker as my broker. In the Administration process their support was very good, however, they never notified me about the NQ announcement of April 9, 2020 or the vote to subordinate on May 1, 20202, nor did the company mentioned Jarvis. The still held my bond at that time. I have written Reyker again to ask about Jarvis.
I have also written Begbies Traynor and intend to do so again. I think it may be important - although to what effect I don't know - to let my concerns known before their plans for NQ Minerals , whether its to wrap it up or seek to refinance, which will need to be published in October. At least for me I would like someone to hear that we noteholders take issue with handing our senior security to ING bank without any of us knowing about it or voting on it.
I would encourage others to write the brokers or custodians and anywhere else to ask what happened, did the custodian /stockbrocker have prior knowledge of the vote, etc. Somehow we need to get the word out that we don't believe proper due process was followed. To me this all is a con, what looks like the old "bait and switch" . We were sold one thing and delivered another as the time to cash in the bond came due, plain and simple in my view. Unethical and perhaps not entirely legal. Again, only my take on
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?
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
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.
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.