To: Lenders in Trustbuddy from pdf

Outstanding loans in Trustbuddy and the management of lenders outstanding
The last few days we have received many questions about our intentions on managing
the outstanding P2P-loans in Trustbuddy. The questions mainly originate from lenders
having received a letter from representatives of a number of Nonruegian lenders, whom
each has larger outstanding loan in Trustbuddy.
The letter contains a description of this lenders’ initiative and a request for a power of
attorney to, amongst other things; collect claims on behalf of other lenders. The deadline
for the request has been set for 11 January and the letter further states that the
authorisation is dependent on receipt of authorisation from 213 of the entire group of
lenders. lf you do not actively respond to the letter you have not given your authorisation
to the group.
The background for the initiative is the analysis of the bankruptcy estate that the claims
and accrued amounts from borrowers is not part of the bankruptcy estate. The claims
belong to the lenders due to right of separation. When it comes to outstanding claims,
each individual lender has a right of separation if his/her claim can be individually
identified. Regarding received payments on loans, which were in the bankruptcy estate’s
proceeds on the date of bankruptcy, there is a collective right of separation for the
lenders. The collective right of separation applies to so called ”active capital, ”stopped
capital”, and partial payments on loans, which were not reported back to lenders but lent
out again, without being applied to any particular lender.
ln our previous letter the bankruptcy estate suggested that the claims should be sold the
lenders carrying a joint risk for the discount. We got offers from collection agencies to
buy the claims outstanding on the Swedish market for up to 40 o/o. On other markets the
offered price was lower. After discussions with the group of lenders, who have now sent
out the letter with the initiative mentioned above, they strongly opposed us selling the
stock. lnstead they informed the bankruptcy estate that they wanted the claims to be
collected. lt was their belief that this solution would be more beneficial for the lenders.
The bankruptcy estate asked collection agencies to submit offers on collecting the
claims on behalf of the lenders. We received two well-grounded offers, meaning a final
cost for the lenders amounting to 25 o/o of recovered claims’ following 9 months after

starting the collection. During the first 9 months the agencies would not charge any fees.
ln addition to these costs, there would be costs for the bankruptcy estate to deal with the
collection on behalf of the lenders.
Following our presentation of the offers we had received for the Nonuegian lenders, they
took the above mentioned initiative to form a group to manage the collection of claims
on behalf of lenders. We have notified them that on a principle level we have no
objections to this. The offer of managing the collection through the bankruptcy estate is
an offer made in the interest of helping the lenders in a difficult situation. The bankruptcy
estate has no own interest in this. lf the collection can be handled more efficiently by the
Nonrvegian group we have no objections in that respect. lf such organization can be
formed we will of course be helpfulwith providing the information we have. One example
is the importance of separating the claims that can be individualized from the claims that
have with a joint right of segregation to funds on the client accounts. Those lenders must
be treated as a separate collective in this respect and their interest must be protected
during the process.
The bankruptcy estate does not and cannot give any advice or take a stance for how
you, as a lender, should act and deal with the letter and offer. However, we stress the
urgency of the collection of claims get started one way or another, and we will cooperate
and be helpful in finding practical solutions for any questions arising on the way.