The latest output from Coboco is clear evidence of their fury and desperation. We suspected, but didn't know it was quite that bad. What they are resorting to now to protect themselves is quite extraordinary. They claim that our insistence on their being bankrupted is so that we can take advantage of their portfolio and start buying up 'their' houses. What a fantastic idea!
We should like to state here, quite categorically, that we have no interest whatever in any of 'their' properties or any that may be in some way connected with them. We are not interested in buying any of the properties and we do not know anyone who is or might be interested in doing so. So that allegation is actually no more than an exercise in mudslinging. We don't know if that will impress their supporters. Perhaps not.
Also, in the email mentioned by Collins, Jasmine merely requested and here requests again that they return to us the £15,000 we lent them, plus a bit of interest.
To clarify our position about the post-bankruptcy situation: investors can vote for an independent trustee—who must be a properly qualified insolvency practitioner (IP)—to examine and manage the assets. Yes, the mortgage company would appoint an LPA receiver who would use the rents from the properties to pay the mortgage and expenses; any surplus would go to the trustee to divide among the investors pro rata. UKAR have indicated that they would be prepared to operate such a system for years if it is commercially viable.
One of the advantages of a private trustee over an IVA is that the trustee has no time limit. He can continue to administer the assets indefinitely until the debts are paid. An IVA, on the other hand, is limited to 5 or 7 years.
There is no need for the partners to get hysterical: if their plan for an IVA is acceptable, then perhaps the case will go that way. We reiterate that the partners' finances need to be held up to forensic accountancy—and the best way, perhaps the only way, for that is bankruptcy. The hysterical nature of their communications would suggest that they have a lot to hide. If that is indeed so, wouldn't it be better to come clean now rather than later?
The partners have also been spreading a rumour that we have been encouraging their student tenants not to pay rent. There is no truth in this whatsoever. What has actually happened is that one of their investors, who is absolutely beside himself with anger and grief—because he invested with them all his savings, amounting to £150,000—had the idea that he would go to some of the rented properties and ask the tenants to pay him rather than the partners. In point of fact, we have asked him not to do that, as it would not be a proper course of action.