Amigo Share Discussion Threads

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 14:26

ISA-Investor

Posts: 90

Price: 15.82

No Opinion

Court Case UpdateToday 14:24
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.

[brocksford] 30/3/2021 14:20

Nico, you are doing a great job, many thanks.

The guy must be a very fast typer!!

[samsung2020] 30/3/2021 14:18

Sara really needs to do one, total xxxx

[ayanboin] 30/3/2021 14:16

Thanks Nicolaw
Very helpful updates. as some of us don’t have access to LSE.

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 14:13

fyi i am just copying isa investor updates, as prev mentioned these could be manipulated etc but i don't believe so. always take everything with a pinch of salt, dyor etc. just sharing for those who don't have access. Thanks

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 14:13

ISA-Investor

Posts: 90

Price: 15.50

No Opinion

RE: Update from the courtToday 14:11
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...

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 14:11

While we're in recess, I shall eat my sandwich. Will struggle to stay on this afternoon though as I have meetings. By way of opinion - I THINK it is going well. A lot of what might be consdered negative is not for the judge to consider today. The class means that the oldest customers i.e. the happiest i.e. the ones who have paid back the most will have votes weighted in their favour. I THINK that is the correct interpretation and that is my interpretation. If there is no class split; the largest claims will be by those who paid the most interest, which I assume to be those who paid back the most i.e. older loans, hence why GJ wants them all in since 2005. i.e. AMIGO have very much weighted the vote in their favour. Now, whether the court won't like that or not... lets see! DYOR and look for your own interpretation. It's not always easy to think/understand 100% clearly when listening and typing! Going for fresh air!

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 14:10

ISA-Investor

Posts: 90

Price: 15.52

No Opinion

Court...Today 13:11
Sara (Debt Camel) being told off for "piping up" in written comments and if she does it in court, she would be committing an offence. Says Gary said she would be able to speak and RPC have given inaccurate info. Court saying that has to be taken up with solicitors and because recording is ongoing, she could be in contempt by speaking now already. Court saying she will not be able to speak today at all. Formal application must be received and approved.

[roughandtumbleone] 30/3/2021 13:50

Never understood why a company doesn't suspend its shares in situations like this. It's clearly price sensitive info and just the slightest sniff of bad news the share price goes to single figures and with good news it could easily tech 20p+The commentary from the poster at court though useful could be manipulated and right now, considering this was a tick in the box court exercise, it appears a lot of questions have been raised that throws further questions into the mix.

[samsung2020] 30/3/2021 13:20

Be interesting to see price movements when decision is announced either way, obv we all hope it goes north

[djstevens8614] 30/3/2021 13:18

Sam you were right the other day, I hope you are again today.

[djstevens8614] 30/3/2021 13:17

Whatsthepoint exactly how I see it. May settle on 17-18p depending on how much positive coverage there actually is from this first hearing. Can't see it going any higher than this until the actual approval is granted which isn't going to be today.

[samsung2020] 30/3/2021 13:17

TBH I do see movements based on today outcome...

[whatsthepoint] 30/3/2021 13:13

My take is it won't fly today no matter what happens as too many people are expecting it to do so. It doesn't look like it will fly until after a vote and confirmation the company can survive. That's my take. And I am long.

[brocksford] 30/3/2021 13:13

No apparent reason not to approve from what Nico has shared. Any tweaks can be done if required without throwing this out today

[spirito] 30/3/2021 13:11

yes with lots of detail to be agreed

[samsung2020] 30/3/2021 13:11

The way I'm reading the updates so far I see the Judge approving case to move to next stage. That's my take so far.

[gripfit] 30/3/2021 13:11

APPROVE OR NOT??

[gripfit] 30/3/2021 13:10

CONSENSUS????

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 13:09

why is this not flying..??

[samsung2020] 30/3/2021 13:08

Thanks pal, this has been brilliant updates

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 13:07

ISA-Investor

Posts: 90

Price: 15.52

No Opinion

RE: Update from the courtToday 13:07
MSE Website believe claimants are most worried about fairness... Nothing really on classes for creditors though. Debt Camel concerns are distinction between borrowers and guarantors [already discussed] and outstanding and current loans [already addressed]. 2 points left on classes... RPC only reviewed 375 emails. Cut off on the 27th (assume march). Emails that have come in later don't say anything different on class issues (to paraphrase). Some emails think a borrower and guarantor could cancel each other out by voting different ways, which isn't fair as each stand to benefit differently (to paraphrase). RPC are saying there isn't more than want to draw attention to in terms of class. So, court is now taking a break for an hour and will resume at 2:05pm...

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 13:03

ISA-Investor

Posts: 90

Price: 15.52

No Opinion

RE: Update from the courtToday 13:02
Comments regarding underlying fairness, so consumers are satisfied Judge has heard them: there are undoubtedly creditors who refinanced their loan with AMGO by borrowing from a 3rd party. The concern being some creditors will benefit more than others (those with an outstanding loan balance) and some will not have an existing loan for set off (those who refinanced elsewhere). Basically; an outstanding loan balance with AMGO is a 'better' position to be in for the scheme and the question is - is that fair? In that context [I am interpreting] that means they are asking to be treated as a different class. The next question is about why bond holders get their money back and why "only" 15% of future profits is "fair" for distribution. [mini breaks as the judge reads the emails]. QC is saying that this is not something that the court should consider today. This is for the later hearing. So, question is not to the court as to whether there is a fairer system. These emails are merely an example of complaints about fairness to be considered at the later hearing. [now looking at the report] what RPC did is to note they had a limited no. emails about class points, they had a number that raised other issues. Some have explained the substance of their underlying complaint, others give no detail. A number of concerns include: Amigo being "in control" of claims assessment process. Concern the no. claims upheld won't be as high as if it was an independent. Many of these questions have been answer by Amigo QC already [assume he means assessment mechanism, automating, manual checking] so creditors will have more clarity on the process after today on why it is fair, etc. All creditors will be treated the same under the scheme has been reiterated. More email examples from RPC - customers have found the practice letter/statement difficult to understand. Some emails suggest a misapprehension about what the SOA is and they are asking to join the "class action". RPC say that a contributing factor to receiving so few emails on 'class distinction' may be a difficulty in understanding the scheme letter and adequacy of information made available. However, it is reiterated further information can/will (i.e. Q&A) be made available going forwards. Now bringing up money saving expert and debt camel as sources of info....

[nicolaw] 30/3/2021 12:48

ISA-Investor

Posts: 90

Price: 16.02

No Opinion

RE: Update from the courtToday 12:48
QC recommending that they add answers to some of the customer's questions to the scheme website to support the explanatory statement if anyone is finding it hard to understand. Judge says explanatory statement needs to be sufficient on it's own terms but must be read in the context of details available elsewhere. QC says intention is to review all of customer comments and further Q&A material can then be produced. Over short adjournment, QC will take instructions on expanding the Q&A section but would not want to delay the process/date of the meeting. QC has nothing else to address the judge on at this stage. Independent scheme assessor now on. aims to assist judge and customers with the process. they review the emails setting out concerns raised by customers about the scheme and then to write a report and attend today to pass on the results of their review to 375 emails. 3 categories to discuss: class issue, procedural issues, other concerns. Fairness concerns are relevant but for today's purposes less important (for next hearing). Notably few emails that raise a class issue. "Hazard a guess" (Richard Fisher QC) that's because the scheme is relatively simple albeit some are confused as to how it works. 1st email identified by RPC as potentially raising class issue/concern... [judge reading it to himself]... Email suggests there may be a group of customers where sufficient information (older claims) still exists to support their claims. If they can't provide sufficient evidence then they are worried that they lose their rights (effectively). Question being that should these people be identified? 1 customer has had problems with AMGO providing old data as it has been anonymised under data protection (or something like that). However, this shouldn't be a huge group of customers who this applies to (i.e. they had 1 customer email that refers to the topic). Point being; should there be a class split based on who has info available and who doesn't. 2nd concern regarding class: based on 2 emails received - availability of set-off available to certain creditors might need a split. Commercial question being posed is are those who have set-off and those who would receive a cash payment 'different', thus should be treated differently.