Member Info for Senator1

I don't think Amigo should negotiate with the FCA. They have shown themselves to not be worthy of trust and while I know they reserved their right to change their mind there was a long consultation time on SOA1 and to act the way they did was unprofessional and discourteous to everyone. Just offer the 15% of profits till all claims met with interest on any payments made after year 4 and move on. I would not believe a thing they said if I was negotiating with them and so it would be a pointless exercise.

rating agencies, way out in front as always, lol. I can only think of one thing worse than paying any attention to rating agencies, having Mr Dicker explain to the court your financial predicament.

I know for a FACT it is out of date and the Bond outstandings are £234m. If you are paying £300 a month for that what can I say, waste of money, ask for a refund, its all the fashion!

They have played that card as demonstrated by the chart you keep referencing and which shows they get to £234M in jan 2024, JUST. They cant now say, oh we were only joking, trying it on a bit, dont worry there is loads of cash for everyone. That horse has well and truly left the stable and you know what I think the soon to be released results will show they have probably been too optimistic as you think the securitisation facility has been fully repaid by june but I think still £50-60m left to go based on my £10m a month repayment schedule.

Id rather rely on the accounts of Amigo than some platform that is clearly years out of date. The original issue amount was 400m but since bonds have been bought back and retired.

if that were the case it would definitely be over, thankfully only £234M outstanding

simple, the risk here is not well compensated for at 7.625% annual pay as the Bond price clearly demonstrates

I dont make deceisons on Hope value. The fact of the matter is the Secured lenders are in control here and they care about one thing only, getting repaid in full. The Judgement of the HC, Supreme court or the Queen herself matter little to them and they certainly dont care if some Judge is offended because he feels the sword of Damocles swiping past the side of his cheek.

Get me the Bond document and I can. I cant find it

if Bybrook did own a majority of the Bonds shareholders would be in real trouble as they would accelerate, eliminate existing shareholders and then convert their debt to equity but only if there was a cap on claims, which of course there isnt which means they wont try that

because I can read a set of accounts and Amigos are straight forward and not complex at all

there are no unsecured bonds

The Secured Bondholders? No way. They will only sell for 100% repayment and no way Bybrook or JPM will offer that for 7.625%.

They wont, thats Peter robbing Paul.

It doesn't quite work like that. IF, and it is an IF because we just dont know right now, but if they have any ACCELERATIOn rights and ask for their money now because they didnt like the FCA comments and the risk this poses for them with just a floating charge and Amigo cant meet that demand, then they do have the right to put it in administration and exercise their security. The Court has no rights to stop a security holder validly and legally enforcing their security because they think Amigo has a future. Im afraid that doesnt come in to it.

For the FCA (Amigo's regulator) to go in to Court and even suggest Secured monies should be used for a purpose that in no way benefits the secured lender was shameful and in the bigger picture quite a worry. While the floating charge does technically allow Amigo mgmt to move the cash they do have a duty of care as the intention of the security is clear. By their own stupidity FCA have put themselves in a very difficult place. If I was a claimant (im not) and Amigo mgmt put Amigo in to insolvency ultimately or anyone else does over next couple of months I think their is a valid case against the FCA for the loss of compensation. Would be quite funny to see the CMC marshall a case against the FCA for lost compensation on the basis of their case in the HC. Not sure whether shareholders would have a case though but Claimants definitely could make an argument. More money for the CMCs

The Secured lenders won't take a haircut, why should they? They will get their money back in time and know it. The only issue for them is whether they let Amigo mgmt manage the cash realisation or force some type of administration to let their people manage the run down. The FCA comments have increased the risk of the latter if the Bond document gives them this authority as I think they could argue there has been a Material Adverse Change which can (not always) give you these rights. If the Court suggested Bond holders participate in the risk sharing (I didnt see that) but if they did, it again shows the lack of clarity on the funding.

its not available to the securitisation lenders as it didnt come from the securitised assets. Bottom line, it cant be used for that purpose.

Yes but I'm not picking numbers to suit my argument I am taking the actual 9 month figures as supported by the cashflow statement. I dont see a June label on what you reference but at the end of the day it is a forecast not reality. So to use the label lying with a forecast makes no sense to me. I dont expect god like qualities from this management team that their forecast will be 100% locked in stone correct. Court didnt believe them either. We will soon find out but if you think the Sterling secured bondholders are not doing everything they can to stop the utilisation of what they will consider their cash, I think you are wrong. Would you allow your cash to be used to settle an argument between two other parties that happen to be involved in the same situation. These guys are professional institutional investors and after the court hearing I am sure they are regreting only having a floating charge on £165m of THEIR cash , thats a certainty. What they can do about it is in the detail, detail we dont have

The biggest issue I have is the Court did not even discuss the temporary waiver to June 25th. This facility is effectively in run down and that means that lender is exiting he is after all asking for all the cash from any collections with nothing going to sub debt holders. This and fact FCA counsel was suggesting there was loads of cash and time which the judge did not correct. It was wrong of the FCA to suggest they can use the £165m of cash (or their estimate of £180M) to prolong further negotiations. Bottom line, I judge these people based on what they say, not their title. On some of this stuff they were plain wrong but the onus was on Amigo to prove it and they made no effort in this regard.