Suncorp sold their loan, not the title deed. According to the weekend newspaper Sunland paid less than 80c in the dollar, so let's say $17.6m for the $22m reported face value. If Sunland take possession of the property and sell it, they would be entitled to the first $22m + expenses with MPF getting anything above that.
It can't be a good sign for the valuation of Maddison estate if Suncorp are supposedly in the box seat and still willing to take a 20% loss just to get out. Ideally you'd want the second mortgagee (MPF) to take out the first mortgagee to protect their position and maximise a return by further developing the property. However, can you imagine the cheek of a financial adviser going back to their client and asking for more money to put in the MPF.
10% commission eh? ... that guy has some serious balls to get in the press and try to make out as if he's a victim. Clearly didn't do any homework whatsoever given his lack of understanding on what LM actually invests in. Lending to property development has never been considered low risk.
10% commission
If this group that is gathering, putting in the commission money to get our money back, really wants to prove that they're serious about getting all our money back, would publish a nice spec sheet showing exactly how much this all is. As I understand it, it's outstanding commissions, not those already paid out, that have been signed away to the lawyers... Soooo.... How much money is this anyway, compared to the commissions they already raked in?
That article makes it sound like he put all the money he ever made. I would rather doubt that. But if they did, just publish a sheet that says so.
- - - Updated - - -
Are you freaking kidding me TEN BLOODY PERCENT UPFRONT!!!!!!
But at least open a data room, invite them in and ask the question. FTI have charged $3.2m for their time so far, and they've done nothing for that money apart from spending time arguing with Trilogy and Piper Alderman.
I think what you mean is that the fund is illiquid under the corps act rather than insolvent. the issue with the fund is liquidity, rather than solvency. if they were liquid, they could start processing payments.
Well I would say they are insolvent and illiquid. According to Trilogy's own words in various emails, these interest distributions which were declared and unpaid back in 2010 and 2011 tax years are liabilities to the fund. Their words not mine originally. We were even taxed on them in those years although the payments have never been received. Trading while insolvent? - who knows. What does trading amount to? - the fund was frozen since March 2009 with no money in and no money out. What does trading mean for a fund?
bigheadache- not sure why you write about the Daily UP, as far as the LMFMIF it has NEVER varied EXCEPT when LM did a REVIEW and down graded the UP . To say that "Technically" we haven't LOST any money/distributions is simply not correct, and is not supported by the actual evidence.
Have a read of past postings to see what I mean- In case you are not fully aware some direct investors in the FMIF have actually been receiving Distributions in recent years when OTHER investors in the Feeder Funds ie WFMIF have NOT received these SAME distributions, so the reality is we HAVE actually really lost money, certainly compared to other LM investors
And to finish UP the TWO most recent so called "Capital Distributions" paid via FTI were paid as Capital to FMIF investors BUT investors in the WFMIF received these as catch up INCOME distributions after additional Fees were deducted by TRILOGY as the RE- some much for fairness and equity
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?