Some 2,494 investors who had participated in crowd-funded loans on the failed P2P platform Moneything were joined to this High Court action as respondents on 16th September 2021. This was their opportunity to comment on directions prior to a trial scheduled for February 2022.
The application was made by Joint Administrators Tom Straw and Milan Vuceljic concerning the contractual right of Moneything (Security Trustee) Limited (in administration) to deduct and pay from security realisations its costs associated with monitoring and enforcing peer-to-peer loans facilitated by the P2P Platform Moneything Capital Limited (also in administration).
Ms Anja Lansbergen-Mills, counsel for the applicant administrators, told the court that that any evidence in response to the Substantive Application should have been filed by 4pm on 21 October 2021. She explained that no formal evidence had been received although an investor known as #2115, who was said to be representing 8 others, had made an informal application for a 6-week-extension to enable legal advice to be taken and further submissions to be made.
If such an extension was granted to all the investors “it would undermine the case management function that this hearing has been listed to provide” and would send the case “back to square one and put things up in the air” Ms Lansbergen-Mills submitted. She requested that any such extension be granted only to those who had requested it – a proposition that HHJ Cawson QC agreed with.
Mr ‘2115’ told the court that the so-called Moneything Action Group was in its “infancy” but explained they were “getting requests every day through an e-mail process” and “through the p2p forum and by word of mouth”. “We’re confident if were given the opportunity to communicate with other lenders we would grow as a group” and be able to “raise our own funds to raise a legal case” he said.
Mr ‘2115’ explained that currently the group comprised some 32 members and was increasing at a rate of 2 or 3 per day. The Judge explained that the “court would be best assisted by a co-ordinated response to the application” and whilst the group had 6 weeks to put in evidence in response “that will go very quickly”.
It is understood a Substantive final hearing with a time estimate of 1 day has been listed for February 2022.
Where is the FCA?
At a recent substantive hearing in the matter of Lendy Ltd (CR-2019-BHM-000444), covered in great detail by the mouseinthecourt, the skeleton argument of the respondents in that litigation stated that:
“At an early stage, the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) indicated that it was considering intervening to make submissions, to safeguard the position of Model 1 and Model 2 Lenders. On 25 September 2020, however, the first respondent, Lisa Taylor, was directed to stand as a representative on behalf of the class of Model 2 Lenders, and the Administrators have subsequently agreed for her costs to be paid as an expense of the Lendy administration. The court will thus have the benefit of adversarial argument on the principal points for decision, and the FCA is consequently not appearing”
Whether the FCA intended to step-up and assist lenders was asked in an e-mail made to the FCA press desk on 13/10/2021 but remains unanswered.
A question to the court by a Moneything Investor known as Mr 22 was “One would hope the regulator would be participating in these proceedings… Have the FCA asked to be joined”.
The response by Ms Lansbergen-Mills to the court was that “the FCA have been served with everything including hearing bundles for today”. It is unknown if they will intervene to protect the lenders position.
Open Justice & Anonymity for Investors
“It’s quite an embarrassing situation I’ve found myself in. I’ve made some misjudgements in the investments I’ve been involved in” cited Mr ‘2115’ as a reason for anonymity in today’s proceedings.
In oral submissions to resist any derogation to the Open Justice principle, I drew the courts attention to Civil Procedure Rule 39.2 ‘The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public’.
After hearing submissions from myself and from four investor respondents the judge ruled that CPR39.2(3)(C) was engaged as the hearing ‘involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality’.
HHJ Cawson QC: “I can see a case so far as the respondents are concerned that information as to whether they have invested, how much they might have invested and personal details are matters that are properly regarded as confidential information“
The issue of anonymity at trial “can only be determined when the nature of their evidence is revealed” the judge concluded
I was granted access to the Skeleton Argument after redactions by the instructing solicitor.
Case Details
In the High Court of Justice
Business and Property Courts in Manchester
Insolvency and Companies (ChD)
Before His Honour Judge Cawson QC
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Sitting in Court 41
At the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester
On 28 October 2021
In Public
10:30am
CR-2020-MAN-001030 Moneything (Security Trustee) Limited In Administration
2 hr directions Teams
Mouse in the Court 