Lifemark rescue talks with CarVal collapse
Prev Close:
More FTSE charts & pricesPrev Close:
More FTSE charts & pricesPrev Close:
More FTSE charts & pricesby Iain Martin on Jul 26, 2010 at 07:32
Lifemark investors could be forced to rely on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) to bail them out as talks between the troubled life settlement vehicle and CarVal Investors collapse.
US hedge fund CarVal has walked away from a £40 million restructuring deal which would have seen 25,000 Lifemark investors repaid over a 14-year-period, according to sources close to the negotiations.
Lifemark has also had to repay a short-term $2.5 million loan from CarVal now negotiations have broken down.
‘It is obvious in my opinion that CarVal will not come in…CarVal are a very large firm and it is not going to put its reputation in question over a $60 million deal,’ said a source, who added that a number of Lifemark investors had felt the CarVal deal was too expensive.
CarVal did not respond to calls.
The options for Lifemark and the prospects for its investors, who put £350 million into the Luxembourg-based vehicle via Keydata, founded by Stewart Ford, have now narrowed.
Lifemark needs to secure funding through a restructuring deal or sell the life settlement policies it holds in order to bridge its severe liquidity problems.
It ran into funding problems because it has to maintain premium payments on its assets despite fewer policies than expected maturing.
Selling the assets would keep Lifemark afloat until the performance of its portfolio improves but this could take years and would erode the capital that could be eventually returned to investors.
Equally detrimental would be a fire sale of assets if Lifemark went into liquidation, which a source close to the company said could leave investors with returns of just 5p or 10p in the pound.
Lifemark could still sign a deal with CarVal or another third party which was willing to invest into the portfolio.
‘The only way to pay for the premiums is to look to a third party funding or sell assets,’ said a source. ‘It is not easy to sell assets in the current environment…It is sad for investors but unfortunately this is what they have invested in.’
News sponsored by:
Today's top headlines
More about this:
More from us
- Keydata investors face up to 14-year wait for refund
- Keydata scandal causes 500% FSCS claims hike
- FSCS plans September judgement for Lifemark compensation
- Keydata victims ask: who is Stewart Ford?
- PwC racks up £1.94m in Keydata fees
- Lifemark investment adviser Meditron resigns
- FSA says it was 'pro-active' in tackling Keydata
- Stewart Ford blames FSA for Keydata collapse
- FSCS refuses to explain why it rejected Keydata claim
- Lifemark paid 10% commission to Ford’s offshore company
Email me when someone posts a new comment on this article
4 comments so far. Why not have your say?
Harry Katz
Jul 26, 2010 at 10:00
If the details of the proposed deal were accurate it is no bad thing that CarVal has withdrawn. How would you like to wait 14 years to be repaid?
Yet again - will the FSCS please stop fannying about and start compensating Lifemark customers. Am I being a simpleton about this? I thought that is precisely what the FSCS is there for, so why in all that’s holy doesn’t it get on with it?
report thisPeter Hilton
Jul 26, 2010 at 11:48
There was never any possibilty that the PWC sponsored CarVal deal would do anything at all to allieviate the plight of the 24,000 UK pensioners who took out these "Secure Income Plans" etc. It was never about that - it was all about paying off the debt and unpaid fees to other parties which have accumulated during PWC's stewardship of the failed company. And of course benefitting CarVal's shareholders.
It has always been clear that the only way the victims would have any chance of seeing anything back (probably, in many cases, within their remaining lifetimes) would be if the FSCS scheme recognised that this whole thing (starting with names like "Secure Income Plan"and other marketing misrepresentaions and progressing through hidden $60M rakeoffs into Virgin Island "Trusts" was at best a regulatory cock-up of the first order and at worst a massive fraud perpetrated under the very noses of that same regulator.
So, as Harry has said - why is it so difficult for FSCS to make a decision?
report thisChris Stapleton
Jul 26, 2010 at 11:53
FSCS fannying about eh? they don't normally do that when they want to take more money from us!
report thisAndrew Cripps
Jul 26, 2010 at 16:09
It is now time that the FSCS should announce there decision on their 'IN DEPTH INVESTIGATION' and not September.
Some come on David and Nick, GET INVOLVED and help bring a swift end to this whole sorry debacle.
report thisleave a comment
Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.