Skip to main content

Client Type: Individual

The one with the pitch about being millionaires from the comfort of your living room…

Written by admin on .

Advised a group of over 340 property investors in relation to an alleged fraudulent property scheme causing investment into properties in multiple jurisdictions including the UK, Spain, the US and Cyprus.  These property acquisitions led to investors being in negative equity and many suffered the loss of their life savings.  

With the benefit of litigation funding, the group obtained through a non-party disclosure application to the High Court, the now defunct companies’ books and records which revealed that a key number of individuals within that organisation had caused misrepresentations to be made to hundreds of investors relating to the carrying out of due diligence and genuine discounts being provided on property purchases off plan.  Our efforts enabled the parties to understand and detail the legal case they could pursue against individuals behind the company that was now insolvent.

The one with fraudulent facts in the music industry which were not music to the ears of the investors…

Written by admin on .

Advised two individual investors in relation to being misled into buying shares in a company in the music production industry.  The individuals were misled through a series of misrepresentations as to the existence of contracts with certain entertainers apparently signed to the record label.  

Advice led to threatening an application for a freezing injunction due to alleged fraudulent misrepresentations which caused the clients to make their investments. The approach undertaken ultimately led to resolution of the claim with the investors retrieving more than 90% of their investment.

The one with the £1m property investment and the fraudulent tenant

Written by admin on .

Advised investors who were misled into purchasing a commercial property that was said to be a sale and lease back by its owner.  The decision to make the acquisition, for approximately £1m, was founded on a fraudulent misrepresentation. The vendors made assurances that it was selling the property to lease it back from the client investors; in fact, the vendor company never intended to take occupation of the lease and so the misrepresentation as to the “lease-back” fraudulently inflated the property transaction by £500,000. 

The inflated value on the transaction were the monies gained fraudulently to the benefit of the individual directors of the vendor company perpetrating the fraudulent scheme. 

Advice provided led to the clients obtaining a Freezing Injunction against one of the directors for more than £1m, four years after the transaction occurred following discovery of new evidence.  The injunction was later extended to assets of a company said to be a ‘repository’ for the assets of one of the directors, despite that company not being party to the proceedings.  Judgment was obtained more than £2m and recovery, through enforcement measures against the individual directors, secured recovery of the loss suffered.

The one with the fraud that used love to steal

Written by admin on .

Advised the victim of the largest romance fraud recorded in the United Kingdom.  The individual had been misled over a series of transactions resulting in her lending more than £1.5m to an individual she believed to be her boyfriend.  She believed she was enabling her boyfriend to obtain the release of a sizeable multi-million-pound inheritance which needed ongoing investment and support to obtain access to such funds. 

Advice was provided to the individual in relation to collating her evidence and presenting matters to the Metropolitan Police which led to the conviction of the individuals involved in the fraud.

The one where the failure to check the articles of association leading to an invalid Administration.

Written by admin on .

Advice was provided to creditors of a debtor company that was placed into Administration.  It was alleged it was placed into Administration to avoid the debt being paid.  Advice was provided in relation to challenging the administrators assisting the debtor company. 

In this particular case, two issues were raised by the clients.  Firstly relating to administrators failing to achieve their statutory objective in office and administration, to enable an argument to reverse the decision of the company into administration.  

Secondly advice was provided to creditors in relation to the conduct of administrators. It was alleged that they failed to ensure that a meeting of directors at which a vote was taken to appoint administrators was quorate i.e. the correct minimum number of directors in attendance.  The creditors challenged the administration on the basis of the inquorate meeting.  The case succeeded in the Court of Appeal so to nullify all actions taken by administrators in the administration and deprive them of remuneration.  This led to the client being able to enforce their debt and recover their costs

The one with the aggressive creditor causing insolvency

Written by admin on .

Advised a director of a company that had its secured debt due to a large retail clearing bank transferred to a hedge fund.  The hedge fund immediately placed the company into administration without discussion or warning.  Efforts to resolve issues ignored by the hedge fund.  The director of the company was restricted from obtaining refinance due to the administration of the company and sought advice on how to solve the issues. 

On our advice, the director of the company challenged the administrators on the basis that the assets exceeded the debts due from the company and therefore statutory objectives could not be met. 

After corresponding with the administrators, resolution was achieved to see the company handed back to the director.

The one with the solicitors that did not advise on cybercrime risk…

Written by admin on .

Advice was provided to individuals that when purchasing a property were defrauded through an authorised push payment fraud. The solicitors advising on the property transaction did not provide any advice on the risk of cybercrime and a claim was therefore made against the conveyancing firm in negligence for failing to provide advice and guidance that may have enabled their client to avoid the loss suffered.

A letter of claim was sent to the solicitors with their insurers thereafter making proposals to resolve the claim.