Further clarification needed on Nera

Martijn Pieter Ooijevaar

• 27 octobre 2026 18:54
• Modifié

Hey Marek,

Thank you for the clarification. However, investors were previously informed that the restructuring agreements had been finalised and that the process was expected to be completed by the end of September. On 7 October, we were again told that only the final details remained.

Could you please clarify the following points?

1. What specific tax question is the outstanding opinion intended to address, and why has it not yet been resolved?

2. Who is responsible for obtaining the opinion, and when is it expected to be delivered?

3. If the agreements are already finalised, could the tax opinion require changes to their terms or structure?

4. Once the opinion is received, are any further approvals or conditions required before all agreements can be signed and the restructuring implemented?

5. When will investors receive the promised comprehensive update, including the proposed repayment schedule, treatment of accrued interest, revised maturities and implications for investor recoveries?

We understand that complex restructurings take time. However, given the prolonged suspension of payments and the missed timelines, investors need specific information and realistic deadlines rather than another open-ended commitment.

Please address these questions directly, even if some details cannot yet be disclosed.

1

• 

  Ugo

  • 2 novembre 2026 12:52

  Nice try @Martijn but Mintos never shares any information for which they can be hold accountable.  Marek c.s. are dog walkers with a barking crowd of dogs on a leash. They say they might feed them when coming home but they never promise, instead they usually keep on walking on an endless unwinding road.

  Often some money come back from default , like with Planet 42 but they had a huge inventory of cars and garages. With Nera Capital I fear that most money is already spent in crazy high lawyer salaries and if they are not paid anymore, will they still be working on litigations? Some of the law firms we all supported with our investments are already bankrupt. Difficult to see the light here, also cause NC is a closed castle and they probably tricked Mintos and get away with it.

  0
• 

  Martijn Pieter Ooijevaar

  • 4 novembre 2026 15:05

  Dear Mintos team,

  I have identified a potentially material inconsistency in the information provided to investors concerning Nera Capital Funding 2 DAC.

  On 25 May and 30 June 2026, Mintos confirmed that the underlying law firms had deliberately suspended outgoing payments during the SRA solvency review to protect their financial positions.

  However, Companies House records show that:

  • Veritas Solicitors LLP registered a new secured charge in favour of Nera Capital Limited, created on 28 April 2026.

  • Its existing secured charge in favour of Denmark Square Ltd (Money&Co), originally created in August 2023, was subsequently recorded as satisfied in full on 3 November 2026.

  This raises several serious questions:

  1. Was the Denmark Square facility repaid in cash, refinanced, or otherwise discharged as part of a restructuring?

  2. If it was repaid, where did the funds originate?

  3. Did Nera Capital Funding 2 DAC, directly or indirectly, finance this repayment?

  4. If Veritas was able to repay another creditor, why were payments to Nera suspended on solvency grounds?

  5. Was the transaction disclosed to Mintos and its investors as part of the ongoing restructuring negotiations?

  6. Did this transaction change the relative ranking, security or recovery prospects of Mintos investors?

  I would appreciate a specific, documented response rather than a general statement about the ongoing restructuring.

  The treatment of other creditors during a payment default is directly relevant to the protection and recovery prospects of Mintos investors.

  Kind regards

  0

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.