Ricky Small cries for his dear wife Joselle, who was taken by the raging waters at Buccament Bay Resort.
by Peter Binose
The private housing development along the Buccament River, in fact beside the Buccament river in the flood plain, was going full speed when I visited last week. Express work is taking place on finishing about a dozen further units, with all stages in progress from start up on.
I walked with a family member of the land owners and builders, who told me the family is worried that they may be stopped from building. But he thought perhaps because of the relationship between them and the ULP leadership they had some considerable protection.
Considering the devastation caused by the December 2013 flooding it is unbelievable, perhaps even criminal, that the government has not stopped further building in an area which has been recorded as a disaster zone for centuries. The area is an ancient and modern floodplain, as shown by the follow records going back to 1876!
Flood years for the Leeward coast and cause: (br)=brush (ts)=Tropical Storm
1876tsbr, 1886ts, 1886, 1887 4tropical storms, 1888ts, 1891ts, 1894br, 1895ts, 1896ts, 1898, 1898ts, 1901ts, 1901tsbr, 1905tsbr, 1916ts, 1918tsbr, 1921, 1928ts, 1933-2tsbr, 1943tsbr, 1944-2ts, 1949ts, 1951br, 1954, 1955br, 1960br, 1967tsbr, 1980, 1986tsbr, 1987ts, 1994tsbr, 2001-2ts, 2002ts, 2003ts, 2004br, 2007br, 2010, 2012ts
That is 44 times in 141 years to the end of 2012.
My worry is what has been going on along the river on the Harelquin Resort side of the main road. I noticed that rocks and boulders of varying sizes from fist sized to sheep size have been piled up the sides of the river banks on the village side of the bank. This has created a flat bottom that will allow water to flow unhindered. That is until there is once again a high volume of water when they will all be dragged back into the river, and now being very mobile will block it at some point and cause further devastating flooding to the resort and the village.
In 2006 the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines commissioned a Drainage Improvement Study to assess the existing drainage conditions of Buccament.
Buccament is located on the south leeward side of the island and sustains the largest and most reliable source of potable water on the island, the Dalaway catchment, which provides over 40% of the island’s total water supply. Apart from this, the river supports community activities such as sport fishing, bathing, and water for farms and stones for building construction.
From documentation, it was revealed that the riverbanks are relatively shallow at 8ft to 15ft. (2001). Additionally, the river has a profound impact on the structure and life of the communities. It empties into a flood plain of relatively poor drained soils near Buccament Bay that runs along the main road.
Activity:
The installation of gabion walls comprising staggered stocks of gabions baskets varying in height between 12ft and 15ft. The walls will be 50ft in length on both banks downstream of the main bridge and 1000 ft along the right bank upstream of the bridge and 500 ft along the left bank.
The flood plain described in the above report is the same flood plain that there are now a rush of houses being built, and also the area where the Government allowed Harlequin resorts to build.
The government have done nothing to eliminate flooding at Buccament despite having received numerous reports since 2001 right up until this year 2014, recommending if not instructing the necessity of installing a river defence. The reports should of been available to the Minister of National Security and therefore Prime Minister Gonsalves and also planning department heads and to Senator Julian Francis, Minister of Transport, Works, Urban Development and Local Government. The reports should of been with full knowledge of all those people – if not it is a failing on their parts.
The failure to act on those reports may of well contributed to the loss of life and property at Buccament. The Ministers may well carry a responsibility for the loss of lives and property.
Since the flooding they have done nothing – it will happen again, and so will the sea surge. This matter should be treated with the utmost urgency. It is obvious what will happen if there is a serious sea surge at Buccament Resort because the land was not raised and buildings are not built on piles, but on concrete rafts or slabs just above sea level. The whole thing they may be undermined by a surge and be taken out to sea, concrete slabs as well.
Building in the flood plain should have been stopped at least since the deaths and destruction of December 2013. That is another failing of the Ministers and planning department. We must get rid of this ULP thing, this attitude, ‘own the flood plain‘ and ‘we are at war with nature‘. The ULP has a ‘build what you want, where you want’ attitude.
It is now time for an Inquiry to show who knew what when and how the people of Buccament were failed by the Ministers, government and planners.
It may well be that Harlequin have a serious claim against their legal advisors who did the original searches on the land they acquired. They may also have a serious claim against the SVG government if the government failed to tell them of the numerous official reports regarding flooding probabilities.
Add to that the failure to give them the Argyle airport on time, that they promised would be ready several years ago. Putting all that together Harlequin could quite well end up owning SVG. At least they will not have to pay Aliens Land Holding Tax again since they became citizens. Thinking about that did they pay ALHT the first time around? Or did the granting of citizenship cancel that out? Was the citizenship anything to do with ALHT?
I call on the Director of Public Prosecutions, Colin Williams, to consider prosecutions in all these matters, dereliction of duty and perhaps even manslaughter charges. Someone must be responsible for something! Lives have been lost and we need closure, not a ‘nolle prosequi‘ before a case is even considered.
Install the river defenses now and stop the building in the flood plain!
Death is coming again. The only question is how many will die next time.
Barbados Free Press 
It’s the “TURD” world would anything else be expected !
Like King Canute the Government thinks that it can control the tides, surges, and rainfall – well actually it doesn’t think thus, it simply ignores the issues hoping that they will go away. But additionally in these more modern times, with enlightened realisation that there is such a thing as global warming and the consequent rising of sea levels, the Government and indeed the property developers are deliberately putting peoples’ lives at risk – all for a QUICK BUCK AND A FEELING OF POWER – yet more people will die of the consequences.
Will Ames take legal action against the sea? The Rain? God?
Why not- Billy Connolly did!
BELOW IS AN INCREDIBLE LETTER FROM DAVID AMES ISSUED TONIGHT, ALLEGING AMONGST OTHER THINGS DECEIT AND FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION BY RL AND GARETH FATCHETT AND JIM BAKER GETS A DISHONOURBLE MENTION TOO.
Dear Investor,
Harlequin values each and every investor and will neither survive nor deliver investments without the full support and trust of Harlequin’s loyal investor base.
Regulatory Legal (‘RL’) disappointingly but unsurprisingly issued an Interim Executive Summary and Enclosures (‘Report’) to its clients on Friday 23rd May 2014 against the advice of Harlequin. The Report, hosted on a supposedly “secure” RL website, was posted on Barbados Free Press within hours and is now a matter of public record. Harlequin has now considered the content of the Report and we set out a full response below that we urge all investors to read.
However, before we delve into why publishing a summary of the draft due diligence report, sent to Harlequin on 13th May 2014 and reliant on inaccurate and misleading information, was a premature move by RL, we would like to make clear the difficulties that Harlequin has faced in the months leading up to this Report.
September 2013 – January 2014: The initial talks. RL confirmed to Harlequin that an investor-led trust is, in their view, the best way to secure investments by paving the way for external investment. Harlequin agreed to provide all security it could and work in good faith with RL to safeguard investments in this way.
February-April 2014: Harlequin had a series of detailed meetings with RL and its barristers and appointed an independent third party law firm, Pitmans, to advise on drafting fair and balanced Trust documentation to secure investors’ interests in return for a waiver of 5 years, in which Harlequin will raise finance and secure the assets held, including the flagship hotel, Buccament Bay Resort. Harlequin agreed to assist RL in askingall investors to join the trust by paying RL £200 + VAT (by completion of Pink Forms) and to have faith in RL to support the best interests of all investors. The Trust documentation was completed with advice from Pitmans. RL agreed to pay for this necessary advice and input with monies collected from investors.
April 2014 (end): RL informed Harlequin for the first time that it intended to rely on a 300 page due diligence document that it claimed to have been preparing since 2013. The document was to say that, whilst there are problems that need to be sorted out, the only option for investors to yield a return from their investment will be the Trust and entry into a Deed of Waiver.
May 2014: Harlequin was told by RL that entry into the Trust is contingent on RL clients agreeing that they have considered the Due Diligence Report. Harlequin see a draft of the Due Diligence Report that relied on out of date, inaccurate information and was spun in such a way as to mislead investors into thinking that Harlequin is arguably insolvent and they should not enter into the Trust.
The current situation is that Harlequin is still committed to working with RL and entering into the Trust. Since the Report was released, many investors have contacted Harlequin to express grave concerns over RL’s conduct, not to mention the quality of its Interim Report after it received what some are claiming to be circa £1 million in investor fees. A common theme is that the Interim Report is intended to be a killer blow to Harlequin and the hope of future investment returns so they can reap considerable profit from redress claims. There are also fears that Harlequin has been tricked by RL into urging investors to becoming its clients so they can liquidate Harlequin for their own motives. Clearly we would hope that this is not the case, although we understand the concern, especially when the misleading Interim Report was released in spite of RL itself announcing publically that its clients wanted to wait for the finished Report with Harlequin’s full responses. There are other reasons but we will get to some of those later.
In the meantime, please continue reading below for a response to the key points set out in the public information that has been made available relating to Harlequin. RL has indicated that not seeking to amend a section of the Report is an admission by Harlequin to agreeing to that part of the Report; Harlequin would therefore like to make it clear that it does not agree with the Interim Report or the draft Due Diligence Report in its entirety.
Executive Summary – Due Diligence
It is our view that the RL documentation we have seen is strewn with errors and therefore should not have been published in any form until Harlequin had the opportunity to respond. Despite Harlequin not expecting the Trust to be contingent on the due diligence report, Harlequin has always maintained that if a report was to be sent out, it is better to release one final report that all investors can rely upon, with all factual errors corrected and no miscommunication of the facts. It is unfortunate that RL has ignored this sensible approach.
Gareth Fatchett was clearly under an immense amount of pressure from a small number of particularly hostile investors and felt the need to send something out before leaving for his holiday. The unfortunate result is we now have to review the information released in the public domain, respond appropriately, and deal with the fallout which will no doubt further delay Harlequin’s response to the draft report. On 23rd May 2014, Harlequin notified Gareth Fatchett of the probable delay, explaining that 3rd June may be difficult to meet due to the need to seek advice on certain elements from overseas lawyers. Mr Fatchett’s response was:
“You take as long as you need to. We understand that the overseas work can take a little more time.”
We would remind investors that Harlequin only received RL’s draft report on 13th May 2014. On receipt, Harlequin explained it would take at least 3 weeks to go through the draft, collate comments from UK-based and overseas advisors, and report back on any inaccuracies. In truth, we had not expected to find as many inaccurate statements and assumptions as the report actually contained, but every effort is being made to complete the response as quickly as possible.
With this in mind, we wish to make it clear to all purchasers that Harlequin’s response may not be available to RL until later in June 2014. We have little control over the length of time it will take for our overseas lawyers to revert to us on the issues we are putting to them, especially where there are numerous significant errors in the information received, but we will do what we can to ensure the delay is minimal.
Defects/Errors
One of the criticisms that Gareth Fatchett has levied at Harlequin is that we have not identified the defects/errors in the draft report sent to Harlequin.The reason for this is that Harlequin does not want to provide a piecemeal, limited response and instead wants to provide a full and detailed collated response. RL has even gone as far as suggesting that this illustrates there are no such defects. There are too many issues to raise in this statement and we shall let our response speak for itself when finalised; however, by way of example, we can confirm that Mr Fatchett’s own solicitor in St Vincent & The Grenadines has withdrawn his 14 page report which was annexed to the draft Due Diligence Report received by Harlequin earlier this month. This is due to the fact that this alone contained many errors as to the correct legal position on the island. The errors included, but are not limited to, incorrect details of judgments entered against Harlequin, incorrect statements regarding ownership of land and the ability to have land purchased by a third party if not registered. This general misunderstanding of the situation and lack of liaison with Harlequin’s advisors resulted in misconceptions which RL sought to seize on. In fact, any outstanding issues in St Vincent & The Grenadines are agreed to be nothing more than minor conveyancing defects.
Breach of Confidential Information
One of the main issues that Harlequin has with the draft and interim reports from RL is the fact that they both contain confidential information sent to RL by or via Harlequin in accordance with a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement. Harlequin and its investors have endured the severe harm of “Harlecon” and other libellous outlets, so we enter into such agreements from time to time in good faith to ensure that Harlequin is protected. For the record, Harlecon was set up and run by Jeremy Newman, then a Wilkins Kennedy accountant, and a full apology was received in the settlement of defamation proceedings against Mr Newman and Wilkins Kennedy.
Harlequin has stated, both privately and publically, that it intends to allow the use of relevant documents and information sent to RL under the confidentiality agreement when we have responded in full on the content of the draft due diligence report. Notwithstanding these assurances, RL has not only led investors to believe that consent is going to be withheld but it has published some of the material in breach of the confidentiality agreement.
The Report and, as will soon be clear, the main due diligence report from RL are selective in what they show and the direction in which they try to lead the reader. Much has been made of confidentiality and yet RL has chosen to show some of the material that is clearly confidential but not all. For example, the interim Report discloses the RLB valuation report but not the BCQS valuation report. RL has both and is well aware that the BCQS report supersedes the RLB report.
This cynical and rather unprofessional approach to its obligations under the confidentiality agreement supports Harlequin’s concerns about releasing material to RL, with or without the agreement in place. These documents are now on “Barbados Free Press”, a fringe blogging website we know Gareth Fatchett monitors closely, and are available for the public to view at any time.
One such document is an unsigned draft witness statement by Jim Baker. This statement was prepared by Mr Baker for confidential use in other proceedings. In order to be helpful, Mr Baker confidentially sent the draft to Gareth Fatchett. It is unsigned and not in its final form. As a solicitor, Mr Fatchett will also be aware that a document prepared for one set of proceedings should not be used in any other proceedings without permission of the court. Astoundingly, this confidential, incomplete document was deemed to be an acceptable document to release with RL’s interim Report and has of course found its way onto Barbados Free Press.
RL has requested on numerous occasions to be provided with a full copy of our investor database. We have rejected these approaches for a number of reasons, not least data protection.
We firmly believe that the above demonstrates that Harlequin is correct to be cautious about entrusting commercially sensitive information to RL. It seems that the firm has little regard for its duty of confidentiality towards Harlequin and we can only hope the same duty it owes to its clients is better served.
Accounting Information
In the interim Report and various updates, RL has made a great deal of the importance of Jim Baker’s figures. We agree that Mr Baker’s figures are important, although the information being relied on by RL was prepared in 2012 and is still to date unaudited and cannot therefore be relied on by RL or clients as accurate. We feel it is right to point out that Mr Baker was supposed to be undertaking a review of the figures and delivery of a complete accounts package, which was agreed to be funded by RL. Mr Fatchett and Harlequin acknowledged that some of the accounts needed to be brought up to date for the Resort Development Companies and the intention was for Baker Clarke to carry out the work required to achieve this over a 6 week period, funded by RL from the sums paid by investors.
Sadly, Mr Fatchett had a last minute change of heart on this, citing spurious reasons for his change of mind and leaving Harlequin in a position where there was no funding available for the work and no time to achieve it prior to the release of the Due Diligence Report (Harlequin will however undertake production of the Accounts separately, which will take more time). We are not saying that this was an intentional ploy to enable RL to state that the financial accounting for the Resort Development Companies was poor, but we have to question Mr Fatchett on his motives for promising to fund the exercise and withdrawing the offer at the eleventh hour. To date, Mr Fatchett, when pressed, has failed to give a cogent explanation on this point.
There are plenty of examples of how the Report is selective in how it conveys information. This is clear from the text itself when examined closely. An example of this is where the Report states that it has information from Jim Baker that it cannot disclose but which would put some of the financial data into context regarding how the investor payments have been spent. Despite this, RL has still decided to report on the data it can report on with no context. This is one of the reasons why Harlequin sought to discourage RL from reporting on its findings until it had Harlequin’s response and was able to use all of the data available.
Panorama Letter
It is interesting that RL refers to the Jim Baker spreadsheet as contained in the document that Harlequin sent to Panorama last year. The Panorama letter, which was expected to be a confidential communication between Harlequin and the BBC, was leaked and planted on an anonymous blog, presumably to pressurise Harlequin into waiving confidentiality. This is not a practice that Harlequin endorses or reacts positively to, particularly when disclosure has been agreed on the aforementioned conditions.
The Trust
Harlequin wants investors to understand that, with or without RL, the trust can proceed. Harlequin has been clearly advised that its most valuable property can be securitised and therefore the initial idea of providing such assets to secure investor monies is a reality. We would prefer to continue working with RL but only if the firm can show that it is working with us and not against us and our investors’ best interests. The firm’s recent activity and failure to listen to Harlequin’s reasonable requests to delay reporting until the due diligence report’s errors are rectified do leave us wondering about its true motives. Further evidence of this is demonstrated by RL’s recent biased survey questions, which are clearly designed to elicit the results that it is after.
On the subject of the use of the investor trust payments, investors should understand that RL has received thousands of payments of £200 plus VAT. Harlequin has requested confirmation of the amount collected and full transparency in spending, etc., but unfortunately this information has not been forthcoming from RL. Harlequin feels extremely let down by RL’s perceived misrepresentation as Harlequin directed thousands of investors to RL to enter into Pink Forms and pay monies to join the trust. Harlequin encouraged investors to instruct RL to make the payments on the clear understanding that the firm would be using the payments to pay for professional fees to assist the Harlequin recovery, including, but not limited to:
– valuations at each of the sites (rather than demand and seek to rely on Harlequin’s complete valuations);
– preparation of accounting information;
– financial due diligence report to attract external finance;
– Pitmans’ fees (of which 80% remains outstanding).
What is clear is that RL has received a significant amount of money from Harlequin’s investors on the basis that the money would be used (as confirmed by Gareth Fatchett at investor seminars) to assist in the set up and entry into the proposed Harlequin Investor Trust. It is clear now that this has not been done.
We do know that Regulatory Legal instructed an insolvency restructuring solicitor in Grand Cayman to prepare a report, which begs the question, has Regulatory legal genuinely sought to set up the Trust or was this a smokescreen to generate funds with which to “rescue” Harlequin after forcing it into liquidation?
Harlequin understands that a growing number of investors are losing confidence in RL due to their perceived negative agenda. Indeed, Harlequin is spending a great deal of time attempting to stop investors taking action against RL for return of monies that are now believed to have been obtained under false pretences. As stated above, Harlequin remains committed to working with RL to enter into the investor Trust provided RL can demonstrate that it is equally committed to achieving the same result.
Completions
Harlequin understands that RL is now telling its clients not to proceed with investor completions as Harlequin is using sale monies to assist with the running of its business. Harlequin has indeed put completion monies received to good use by investing in the resorts and the Harlequin business. Such investment has added significant value to the resorts. RL has been fully aware of this since the first meeting in 2013 and only chooses to make an issue of this now. Harlequin has recently completed on its first property at Buccament Bay Resort by transferring legal title to a purchaser and has many more completions in the pipeline. A more detailed statement about this will follow.
Conclusion
The interim Report states that RL “does not see how any investor can make an informed decision without” the financial information showing how the £400m has been invested. Harlequin agrees with this which is why it has always asserted that no report should be published until all of the facts are available for publication. Despite this, RL could not resist the temptation to publish an interim document, which is meaningless without the context required to help investors make the decision as to whether or not to enter the trust.
The advice and conclusions reached in the Report are, in our opinion, naïve and based on misinformation. After all of this time, we cannot fathom why. The Report’s conclusions are alarmist and extend to personal attacks on the Ames family, which is not considered necessary in a supposedly factual report assessing whether or not to enter into an investor trust. We have now reached an impasse with RL that we hope to navigate through. If not, we hope we have proved by this more detailed response that Harlequin is committed to fighting for its investors and providing the best future possible for its investors. As we have said above, the trust can still go ahead with the security intended to be used to protect investors. Whether or not this is with RL is yet to be seen.
Best regards,
Dave Ames
Chairman
BELOW IS AN INCREDIBLE LETTER FROM DAVID AMES ISSUED TONIGHT, ALLEGING AMONGST OTHER THINGS DECEIT AND FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION BY RL AND GARETH FATCHETT AND JIM BAKER GETS A DISHONOURABLE MENTION TOO.
Dear Investor,
Harlequin values each and every investor and will neither survive nor deliver investments without the full support and trust of Harlequin’s loyal investor base.
OUR COMMENT; ONE LOOK AT THE RL FORUM QUESTIONS THE DELUDED TOAD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS “LOYAL INVESTOR BASE”
BELOW IS ONE OF MANY ATYPICAL COMMENTS.
May 28, 2014 at 9:20am
“I would like to say that i am shocked by this news but to be perfectly honest nothing about this man nor the depths in which he will stoop would surprise me.
Yet again DA makes a massive mistake only succeeding in ensuring investors have even less faith & hammering home the need to remove DA from the hub if there would ever be a going forward plan.”
Regulatory Legal (‘RL’) disappointingly but unsurprisingly issued an Interim Executive Summary and Enclosures (‘Report’) to its clients on Friday 23rd May 2014 against the advice of Harlequin. The Report, hosted on a supposedly “secure” RL website, was posted on Barbados Free Press within hours and is now a matter of public record. Harlequin has now considered the content of the Report and we set out a full response below that we urge all investors to read.
OUR COMMENT; MR AMES WERE YOU HOPING TO HIDE THE INFORMATION.???????? AND WE SAY TOUGH SHIT THAT THIS AND THE OTHER DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC.
However, before we delve into why publishing a summary of the draft due diligence report, sent to Harlequin on 13th May 2014 and reliant on inaccurate and misleading information, was a premature move by RL, we would like to make clear the difficulties that Harlequin has faced in the months leading up to this Report.
OUR COMMENT; WHAT ABOUT COMING CLEAN ON THE DIFFICULTIES THAT HARLEQUIN HAS FACED SINCE THE DELUDED DWARF BEGAN THIS JOURNEY 8 YEARS AGO.
September 2013 – January 2014: The initial talks. RL confirmed to Harlequin that an investor-led trust is, in their view, the best way to secure investments by paving the way for external investment. Harlequin agreed to provide all security it could and work in good faith with RL to safeguard investments in this way.
February-April 2014: Harlequin had a series of detailed meetings with RL and its barristers and appointed an independent third party law firm, Pitmans, to advise on drafting fair and balanced Trust documentation to secure investors’ interests in return for a waiver of 5 years, in which Harlequin will raise finance and secure the assets held, including the flagship hotel, Buccament Bay Resort. Harlequin agreed to assist RL in asking all investors to join the trust by paying RL £200 + VAT (by completion of Pink Forms) and to have faith in RL to support the best interests of all investors. The Trust documentation was completed with advice from Pitmans. RL agreed to pay for this necessary advice and input with monies collected from investors.
OUR COMMENT; MR AMES SURELY YOU MEAN MAY RAISE FINANCE RATHER THAN WILL AS YOU STATE ABOVE. GIVEN THAT YOU HAVE FAILED SO MANY TIMES IN THE PAST.
RL STATED THAT THEY AGREED TO PAY FOR THE PITMANS ADVICE FROM THE FUNDS FROM THEIR OFFICE ACCOUNT AND “NOT” FROM THEIR CLIENTS.
THE RL CLIENTS INSTRUCTED RL TO CARRY OUT DUE DILIGENCE AND PAID FOR THIS AND THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY RL.
April 2014 (end): RL informed Harlequin for the first time that it intended to rely on a 300 page due diligence document that it claimed to have been preparing since 2013. The document was to say that, whilst there are problems that need to be sorted out, the only option for investors to yield a return from their investment will be the Trust and entry into a Deed of Waiver.;
OUR COMMENT; THE STATEMENT ABOVE NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION BY THE AUTHORITIES, AMES IS CLAIMING HERE THAT
RL AND GARETH FATCHETT WERE COLLUDING WITH HARLEQUIN TO SAVE THE BUSINESS AND IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE DUE DILIGENCE, AMES IS CLAIMING THAT GARETH FATCHETT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED AND ENCOURAGED THE INVESTORS TO JOIN THE TRUST.
THIS IS ALARMING.
May 2014: Harlequin was told by RL that entry into the Trust is contingent on RL clients agreeing that they have considered the Due Diligence Report. Harlequin see a draft of the Due Diligence Report that relied on out of date, inaccurate information and was spun in such a way as to mislead investors into thinking that Harlequin is arguably insolvent and they should not enter into the Trust.
OUR COMMENT; THEY HARLEQUIN COMPANIES ARE INSOLVENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. THEY ARE UNABLE TO PAY THEIR DEBTS AS THEY FALL DUE. WHERE IS GARETH FATCHETT AND RL MISLEADING INVESTORS HERE???
The current situation is that Harlequin is still committed to working with RL and entering into the Trust. Since the Report was released, many investors have contacted Harlequin to express grave concerns over RL’s conduct, not to mention the quality of its Interim Report after it received what some are claiming to be circa £1 million in investor fees. A common theme is that the Interim Report is intended to be a killer blow to Harlequin and the hope of future investment returns so they can reap considerable profit from redress claims. There are also fears that Harlequin has been tricked by RL into urging investors to becoming its clients so they can liquidate Harlequin for their own motives. Clearly we would hope that this is not the case, although we understand the concern, especially when the misleading Interim Report was released in spite of RL itself announcing publically that its clients wanted to wait for the finished Report with Harlequin’s full responses. There are other reasons but we will get to some of those later.
OUR COMMENT; THE INTERIM REPORT WAS BASED ON DUE DILIGENCE, THE DUE DILIGENCE UNCOVERED SOME VERY SERIOUS ISSUES WITH HARLEQUIN, BUT IT WAS AMES WHO DEALT HARLEQUIN THE KILLER BLOW LONG BEFORE THE DUE DILIGENCE WAS CARRIED OUT THROUGH HIS GROSS MISMANAGEMENT AND TOTAL INCOMPETENCE.
In the meantime, please continue reading below for a response to the key points set out in the public information that has been made available relating to Harlequin. RL has indicated that not seeking to amend a section of the Report is an admission by Harlequin to agreeing to that part of the Report; Harlequin would therefore like to make it clear that it does not agree with the Interim Report or the draft Due Diligence Report in its entirety.
OUR COMMENT; WE WOULD NOT EXPECT YOU TO SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT,
Executive Summary – Due Diligence
It is our view that the RL documentation we have seen is strewn with errors and therefore should not have been published in any form until Harlequin had the opportunity to respond. Despite Harlequin not expecting the Trust to be contingent on the due diligence report, Harlequin has always maintained that if a report was to be sent out, it is better to release one final report that all investors can rely upon, with all factual errors corrected and no miscommunication of the facts. It is unfortunate that RL has ignored this sensible approach.
OUR COMMENT; YOU HAVE HAD ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD TO CORRECT MANY OF THE HISTORICAL ISSUES, YET YOU HAVE ABJECTLY FAILED TO DO SO.
YOU CLAIM THE RL DOCUMENTATION IS STREWN WITH ERRORS, WELL
WE WOULD ASK YOU TO HAVE A CLOSE LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN, YOU TOTALLY CONTRADICT YOUR SELF IN MANY AREAS OF YOUR PATHETIC LETTER.
Gareth Fatchett was clearly under an immense amount of pressure from a small number of particularly hostile investors and felt the need to send something out before leaving for his holiday. The unfortunate result is we now have to review the information released in the public domain, respond appropriately, and deal with the fallout which will no doubt further delay Harlequin’s response to the draft report. On 23rd May 2014, Harlequin notified Gareth Fatchett of the probable delay, explaining that 3rd June may be difficult to meet due to the need to seek advice on certain elements from overseas lawyers. Mr Fatchett’s response was:
OUR COMMENT; BULLSHIT, YOU HAVE HAD YEARS TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST YOU, YES YEARS, THE DUE DILIGENCE ONLY CONFIRMS WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT YOU AND YOUR COMPANY FOR YEARS.
“You take as long as you need to. We understand that the overseas work can take a little more time.”
OUR COMMENT; LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE RECORDED ALL YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH GARETH FATCHETT, SO HIS ONLY OPTION IS TO NOW STOP ACTING FOR HIS CLIENTS AND MAKE A FULL REPORT TO THE AUTHORITIES. SEE, MR AMES, IF WHAT YOU STATE ABOUT MR. FATCHETT IN YOUR LETTER IS CORRECT, THEN MR. FATCHETT HAS MISLED HIS CLIENTS, YOUR INVESTORS, AND GIVEN THE DECENT SOUL THAT YOU ARE, WE KNOW THAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TO HAVE YOUR INVESTORS REPRESENTED BY SOMEONE WHO IS WHOLLY CONFLICTED.
We would remind investors that Harlequin only received RL’s draft report on 13th May 2014. On receipt, Harlequin explained it would take at least 3 weeks to go through the draft, collate comments from UK-based and overseas advisors, and report back on any inaccuracies. In truth, we had not expected to find as many inaccurate statements and assumptions as the report actually contained, but every effort is being made to complete the response as quickly as possible.
OUR COMMENT; WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR WORK OF FICTION, YOU HAVE ALREADY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF IN THIS LETTER, SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEXT INSTALLMENT OF BULLSHIT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO CONCOCT.
With this in mind, we wish to make it clear to all purchasers that Harlequin’s response may not be available to RL until later in June 2014. We have little control over the length of time it will take for our overseas lawyers to revert to us on the issues we are putting to them, especially where there are numerous significant errors in the information received, but we will do what we can to ensure the delay is minimal.
OUR COMMENT; WHERE ARE YOU GETTING ALL THE MONEY TO PAY YOUR OVERSEAS LAWYERS, AND OF COURSE IT WILL TAKE YOU A LOT LONGER TO FORMULATE A RESPONSE. BUT IF YOU HAD OPERATED YOUR BUSINESSES IN A PROPER MANNER YOU WOULD NOT HAVE NEEDED THE TIME.
Defects/Errors
One of the criticisms that Gareth Fatchett has levied at Harlequin is that we have not identified the defects/errors in the draft report sent to Harlequin.The reason for this is that Harlequin does not want to provide a piecemeal, limited response and instead wants to provide a full and detailed collated response. RL has even gone as far as suggesting that this illustrates there are no such defects. There are too many issues to raise in this statement and we shall let our response speak for itself when finalised; however, by way of example, we can confirm that Mr Fatchett’s own solicitor in St Vincent & The Grenadines has withdrawn his 14 page report which was annexed to the draft Due Diligence Report received by Harlequin earlier this month. This is due to the fact that this alone contained many errors as to the correct legal position on the island. The errors included, but are not limited to, incorrect details of judgments entered against Harlequin, incorrect statements regarding ownership of land and the ability to have land purchased by a third party if not registered. This general misunderstanding of the situation and lack of liaison with Harlequin’s advisors resulted in misconceptions which RL sought to seize on. In fact, any outstanding issues in St Vincent & The Grenadines are agreed to be nothing more than minor conveyancing defects.
OUR COMMENT; IF MR. FATCHETT’S OWN SOLICITOR HAS WITHDRAWN THE 14 PAGE REPORT CONTAINED HERE
https ://anonfiles DOT com/file/7b7493c4a57530d8c394310971b9a686
WHY DID MR. FACTHETT SEE FIT TO PUT IT UP ON HIS FORUM YESTERDAY, AND FURTHERMORE WHY HAS MR. FACTHETT NOT COMMUNICATED THE FACT THAT THE LETTER WAS WITHDRAWN TO HIS CLIENTS AND HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW IT WAS WITHDRAWN. WILLIAMS AND WILLIAMS ACT FOR RL DO THEY NOT? OR DO THEY ACT FOR YOU MR. AMES, PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS ONE.
Breach of Confidential Information
One of the main issues that Harlequin has with the draft and interim reports from RL is the fact that they both contain confidential information sent to RL by or via Harlequin in accordance with a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement. Harlequin and its investors have endured the severe harm of “Harlecon” and other libellous outlets, so we enter into such agreements from time to time in good faith to ensure that Harlequin is protected. For the record, Harlecon was set up and run by Jeremy Newman, then a Wilkins Kennedy accountant, and a full apology was received in the settlement of defamation proceedings against Mr Newman and Wilkins Kennedy.
OUR COMMENT; FULL APOLOGY EH?????? WE TAKE IT YOU EITHER CANT READ OR YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE JOINT STATEMENT ON THE MATTER, WE ADVISE YOU TO SEEK FURTHER LEGAL ADVICE ON YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE, WE HAVE READ THE STATEMENT AND WE CAN FIND NO FULL APOLOGY.
Harlequin has stated, both privately and publically, that it intends to allow the use of relevant documents and information sent to RL under the confidentiality agreement when we have responded in full on the content of the draft due diligence report. Notwithstanding these assurances, RL has not only led investors to believe that consent is going to be withheld but it has published some of the material in breach of the confidentiality agreement.
OUR COMMENT; WHY THE NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE????
The Report and, as will soon be clear, the main due diligence report from RL are selective in what they show and the direction in which they try to lead the reader. Much has been made of confidentiality and yet RL has chosen to show some of the material that is clearly confidential but not all. For example, the interim Report discloses the RLB valuation report but not the BCQS valuation report. RL has both and is well aware that the BCQS report supersedes the RLB report.
OUR COMMENT; IS THIS THE RLB REPORT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?
https ://anonfiles DOT com/file/958b7d8658d86363adc740e671587604
THE ONE THAT APPEARED ON BFP LONG BEFORE THE DUE DILIGENCE, OR THE ONE THAT APPEARED ON HARLECON, JEEZ WE DID NOT IT WAS CONFIDENTIAL OOOPS SORRY 😦
DOES THE BCQS REPORT ALSO SAY YOU OWN 72 ACRES FEE SIMPLE????
This cynical and rather unprofessional approach to its obligations under the confidentiality agreement supports Harlequin’s concerns about releasing material to RL, with or without the agreement in place. These documents are now on “Barbados Free Press”, a fringe blogging website we know Gareth Fatchett monitors closely, and are available for the public to view at any time.
OUR COMMENT; NOW WE DONT KNOW THAT GARETH FATHCETT MONITORS THIS SITE CLOSELY BUT WE DO KNOW SOMEONE WHO DOES, YES ITS YOU MR AMES THE TURD, SORRY TOAD FROM BASILDON, SEE LINK BELOW, NOT ONLY DO YOU MONITOR THIS SITE BUT YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO BLOCK THE PUBLIC FROM VIEWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR COMPANIES THROUGH YOUR RECENT ACTIONS.
http ://barbadosfreepress.wordpress DOT com/2014/05/20/dave-ames-and-harlequin-property-file-legal-papers-against-barbados-free-press-readers/
One such document is an unsigned draft witness statement by Jim Baker. This statement was prepared by Mr Baker for confidential use in other proceedings. In order to be helpful, Mr Baker confidentially sent the draft to Gareth Fatchett. It is unsigned and not in its final form. As a solicitor, Mr Fatchett will also be aware that a document prepared for one set of proceedings should not be used in any other proceedings without permission of the court. Astoundingly, this confidential, incomplete document was deemed to be an acceptable document to release with RL’s interim Report and has of course found its way onto Barbados Free Press.
OUR COMMENT; YOU MEAN THE WITNESS STATEMENT CALLED “WITNESSSTATEMENTFINALON 16414”, THE ONE BELOW
https ://anonfiles DOT com/file/0fb4fba61b7f3a71e5063e0d90565406
THIS CAN EASILY BE CHECKED AGAINST THE WITNESS STATEMENT FILED IN THE COURT ACTION OF THE 25 CLAIMANTS AGAINST MR AND MRS AMES, IF ITS NOT THE SAME THEN YOU ARE CORRECT IF IT IS WHATS THE PROBLEM??????????
BUT THE QUESTION MUST BE ASKED, WHY DID MR. BAKER GIVE HIS CLIENTS’ THATS YOU AMES, THIS WITNESS STATEMENT TO MR. FATCHETT IF THE STATEMENT WAS INCOMPLETE, WHY DID YOU GIVE HIM PERMISSION TO DO THIS, OR HAS HE JUST BROKEN THE RULES THAT PERTAIN TO HIS PROFESSION? IF YOU GAVE HIM PERMISSION, WHY DID YOU, YOU STATE YOURSELF THAT THE WITNESS STATEMENT SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT.
,
SO IS JIM BAKER NOW IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, IS IGNORANCE A DEFENCE. WHY BLAME RL, YOU OR JIM BAKER GAVE THE DOCUMENT TO RL, SO WHY NOW BLAME THEM.
WE DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING HERE, YOU LOOSING IT AMES OLD CHAP.
RL has requested on numerous occasions to be provided with a full copy of our investor database. We have rejected these approaches for a number of reasons, not least data protection.
OUR COMMENT; GOOD BOY DAVE.
We firmly believe that the above demonstrates that Harlequin is correct to be cautious about entrusting commercially sensitive information to RL. It seems that the firm has little regard for its duty of confidentiality towards Harlequin and we can only hope the same duty it owes to its clients is better served.
OUR COMMENT; IRONIC COMING FORM YOU, WHAT ABOUT YOUR DUTY TO YOUR CLIENTS EH, SORRY THEY ARE NOT CLIENTS THEY ARE AS YOU SO OFTEN PUT IT INVESTORS, SO WHERES YOUR DUTY TOWARDS THEM???????
Accounting Information
In the interim Report and various updates, RL has made a great deal of the importance of Jim Baker’s figures. We agree that Mr Baker’s figures are important, although the information being relied on by RL was prepared in 2012 and is still to date unaudited and cannot therefore be relied on by RL or clients as accurate. We feel it is right to point out that Mr Baker was supposed to be undertaking a review of the figures and delivery of a complete accounts package, which was agreed to be funded by RL. Mr Fatchett and Harlequin acknowledged that some of the accounts needed to be brought up to date for the Resort Development Companies and the intention was for Baker Clarke to carry out the work required to achieve this over a 6 week period, funded by RL from the sums paid by investors.
OUR COMMENT; EH HELLO? WHO FILED UNAUDITED AND THEREFORE BY YOUR OWN WORDS UNRELIABLE ACCOUNTING INFORMATION IN ST. VINCENT?
SEE THE FOLLOWING POST “DUE DILIGENCE PART 10 THE FILED ACCOUNTS AND INCOMPETENCE OR WORSE WHOLESALE CORRUPTION AMONGST THE ORGANS OF THE STATE OF ST. VINCENT POSSIBLY? POSTED ON May 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm
YOU CAN FIND IT HERE ITS THE FOURTH ONE DOWN FROM THE TOP
http ://barbadosfreepress.wordpress DOTcom/2014/05/23/svg-high-court-registrar-resigns-suddenly-rumours-flying-about-harlequin-connection/
YOU SAY MR. BAKER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDERTAKING A REVIEW OF THE FIGURES AND DELIVERING A COMPLETE ACCOUNTS PACKAGE??? WE ASSUME THIS WAS TO INCLUDE ALL AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE RESORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES BECAUSE AS YOU CLEARLY HAVE POINTED OUT UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON.
AND RL CLIENTS WERE TO PAY FOR THIS, ?????? RATHER ODD, WHY DONT YOU PAY FOR IT, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO THIS AND YOU FAILED FOR 7 YEARS TO FILE ANY AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR YOUR RDC’S WHY SHOULD RL CLIENTS PAY FOR THIS.
AND IS JIM BAKER QUALIFIED OR INDEED CAPABLE OF CARRYING OUT SUCH A HUGE EXERCISE IN 6 WEEKS????
GOOD ON YA JIM WE SAY.
Sadly, Mr Fatchett had a last minute change of heart on this, citing spurious reasons for his change of mind and leaving Harlequin in a position where there was no funding available for the work and no time to achieve it prior to the release of the Due Diligence Report (Harlequin will however undertake production of the Accounts separately, which will take more time). We are not saying that this was an intentional ploy to enable RL to state that the financial accounting for the Resort Development Companies was poor, but we have to question Mr Fatchett on his motives for promising to fund the exercise and withdrawing the offer at the eleventh hour. To date, Mr Fatchett, when pressed, has failed to give a cogent explanation on this point.
OUR COMMENT; WHY WAS THERE NO FUNDING AVAILABLE TO TO WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO? YOU STATED EARLIER THAT GARETH FATCHETT WAS MISLEADING INVESTORS ON THE SOLVENCY OF THE HARLEQUIN COMPANIES, SEE OUR EARLIER COMMENT ON THIS ; THE HARLEQUIN COMPANIES ARE INSOLVENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. THEY ARE UNABLE TO PAY THEIR DEBTS AS THEY FALL DUE. WHERE IS GARETH FATCHETT AND RL MISLEADING INVESTORS HERE???
There are plenty of examples of how the Report is selective in how it conveys information. This is clear from the text itself when examined closely. An example of this is where the Report states that it has information from Jim Baker that it cannot disclose but which would put some of the financial data into context regarding how the investor payments have been spent. Despite this, RL has still decided to report on the data it can report on with no context. This is one of the reasons why Harlequin sought to discourage RL from reporting on its findings until it had Harlequin’s response and was able to use all of the data available.
OUR COMMENT; YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAVE PREVENTED RL FROM RELEASING ALL THE DATA.
Panorama Letter
It is interesting that RL refers to the Jim Baker spreadsheet as contained in the document that Harlequin sent to Panorama last year. The Panorama letter, which was expected to be a confidential communication between Harlequin and the BBC, was leaked and planted on an anonymous blog, presumably to pressurise Harlequin into waiving confidentiality. This is not a practice that Harlequin endorses or reacts positively to, particularly when disclosure has been agreed on the aforementioned conditions.
OUR COMMENT; THE NEXT TIME YOU SHOULD THINK MORE CAREFULLY ABOUT WHO YOU TRY TO SHAFT, WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND, AND THE PANORAMA LETTER MAKES NO MENTION OF JIM BAKER OR INDEED THAT IT IS CONFIDENTIAL.
ANYWAY WHAT KIND OF FOOL WOULD SEND “CONFIDENTIAL” INFORMATION TO A PROGRAM INVESTIGATING THEM FOR WRONGDOING. AND WHY IS EVERYTHING YOU SEND “CONFIDENTIAL”???
The Trust
Harlequin wants investors to understand that, with or without RL, the trust can proceed. Harlequin has been clearly advised that its most valuable property can be securitised and therefore the initial idea of providing such assets to secure investor monies is a reality. We would prefer to continue working with RL but only if the firm can show that it is working with us and not against us and our investors’ best interests. The firm’s recent activity and failure to listen to Harlequin’s reasonable requests to delay reporting until the due diligence report’s errors are rectified do leave us wondering about its true motives. Further evidence of this is demonstrated by RL’s recent biased survey questions, which are clearly designed to elicit the results that it is after.
OUR COMMENT; RL HAVE BEEN ENGAGED BY THEIR CLIENTS, NOT BY YOU, YOU ARE THE ENEMY, IT IS BECAUSE OF YOUR GROSS MISMANAGEMENT AND INCOMPETENCE THAT RL HAVE BEEN ENGAGED.
YOU ARE FULLY AWARE OF THE TERM CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YET YOU WILL ONLY WORK WITH RL IF THEY WILL WORK WITH YOU NOT AGAINST YOU, WELL SORRY MATEY, THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS,
AS STATED THEY ARE ENGAGED BY THEIR CLIENTS TO SEEK THE BEST POSSIBLE RECOVERY FOR THEIR CLIENTS GIVEN HOW YOU MANAGED TO FUCK THINGS UP SO EASILY.
YOUR BEST INTERESTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF RL’S CLIENTS, YOUR INVESTORS AS YOU CALL THEM.
On the subject of the use of the investor trust payments, investors should understand that RL has received thousands of payments of £200 plus VAT. Harlequin has requested confirmation of the amount collected and full transparency in spending, etc., but unfortunately this information has not been forthcoming from RL. Harlequin feels extremely let down by RL’s perceived misrepresentation as Harlequin directed thousands of investors to RL to enter into Pink Forms and pay monies to join the trust. Harlequin encouraged investors to instruct RL to make the payments on the clear understanding that the firm would be using the payments to pay for professional fees to assist the Harlequin recovery, including, but not limited to:
OUR COMMENT; THIS IS RICH COMING FROM YOU, YOU OF ALL PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR TRANSPARENCY FROM RL ON HOW THEY HAVE SPENT THEIR CLIENTS MONEY, LOL GO DO ONE YOU HYPOCRITE.
– valuations at each of the sites (rather than demand and seek to rely on Harlequin’s complete valuations);
– preparation of accounting information;
– financial due diligence report to attract external finance;
– Pitmans’ fees (of which 80% remains outstanding).
OUR COMMENT; EXCUSE US????? YOU ARE ASKING THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY LOST £400 MILLION TO ASSIST YOU IN PAYING FOR THE VALUATIONS OF YOUR RESORTS WHICH YOU HAVE ALWAYS STATED ARE RISING IN VALUE, SO SURELY IF YOU STATED THAT PURCHASER PROPERTIES WERE RISING IN VALUE YOU HAVE HAD REGULAR PROFESSIONAL VALUATIONS CONDUCTED. YES NO?????
YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD YOUR ACCOUNTS UP TO DATE AS YOU WENT ALONG, NOW WAIT FOR 7 YEARS TO JIM BAKER TO COBBLE TOGETHER SOMETHING IN THE 11TH HOUR AND TO GET SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY HIM TO DO THIS……
YOU KEEP TELLING US YOU ARE ON THE VERGE OF OBTAINING EXTERNAL FINANCE, SO EXPLAIN WHY YOU NEED YOUR INVESTORS TO PAY FOR THE DUE DILIGENCE REPORT TO ATTRACT EXTERNAL FINANCE. LOL STOP DIGGING THE HOLE YOU IDIOT.
NOW PITMANS FEES COULD CAUSE GF A LITTLE PROBLEM.
What is clear is that RL has received a significant amount of money from Harlequin’s investors on the basis that the money would be used (as confirmed by Gareth Fatchett at investor seminars) to assist in the set up and entry into the proposed Harlequin Investor Trust. It is clear now that this has not been done.
We do know that Regulatory Legal instructed an insolvency restructuring solicitor in Grand Cayman to prepare a report, which begs the question, has Regulatory legal genuinely sought to set up the Trust or was this a smokescreen to generate funds with which to “rescue” Harlequin after forcing it into liquidation?
Harlequin understands that a growing number of investors are losing confidence in RL due to their perceived negative agenda. Indeed, Harlequin is spending a great deal of time attempting to stop investors taking action against RL for return of monies that are now believed to have been obtained under false pretences. As stated above, Harlequin remains committed to working with RL to enter into the investor Trust provided RL can demonstrate that it is equally committed to achieving the same result.
OUR COMMENT; HANG ON HERE A MINUTE, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT RL HAVE TAKEN PURCHASER MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES?????? OH YEAH YOU ARE….
ANYWAY THIS IS WHERE RL HAVE TO WALK AWAY FROM AMES, IT IS CLEAR THAT AMES CLAIMS THAT RL WERE WORKING WITH HIM, YET PURCHASERS THOUGHT THAT RL WAS WORKING FOR THEM, INDEED RL REFER TO PURCHASERS AS THEIR CLIENTS, WHAT AMES IS REALLY DEMONSTRATING HERE IS A MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND THAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THE INDEPENDENCE OF RL AND GARETH FATCHETT HAS CLEARLY BEEN QUESTIONED HERE ALBEIT INADVERTENTLY AND AMES SIR, YOU ARE MAKING SOME VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST GARETH FATCHETT, WE ALSO ASSUME YOU HAVE THE RECORDINGS OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS.
IN ESSENCE WE BELIEVE YOU ARE HOLDING A GUN TO GARETH FATCHETT’S HEAD AND NOW EXPECT HIM TO DO YOUR BIDDING.
AKIN TO BLACK MAIL, WELL MORE FOOL TO GARETH FATCHETT IF HE CANNOT ROBUSTLY DEFEND THE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS YOU MR. AMES ARE MAKING.
Completions
Harlequin understands that RL is now telling its clients not to proceed with investor completions as Harlequin is using sale monies to assist with the running of its business. Harlequin has indeed put completion monies received to good use by investing in the resorts and the Harlequin business. Such investment has added significant value to the resorts. RL has been fully aware of this since the first meeting in 2013 and only chooses to make an issue of this now. Harlequin has recently completed on its first property at Buccament Bay Resort by transferring legal title to a purchaser and has many more completions in the pipeline. A more detailed statement about this will follow.
OUR COMMENT; SORRY WE ARE TOTALLY CONFUSED HERE, YOU HAVE ACHIEVED ONE COMPLETION SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ????????????? SORRY YOU HAVE TOTALLY LOST US HERE……TOTALLY……..
Conclusion
The interim Report states that RL “does not see how any investor can make an informed decision without” the financial information showing how the £400m has been invested. Harlequin agrees with this which is why it has always asserted that no report should be published until all of the facts are available for publication. Despite this, RL could not resist the temptation to publish an interim document, which is meaningless without the context required to help investors make the decision as to whether or not to enter the trust.
OUR COMMENT; WE ALREADY KNOW THAT £200 MILLION OF THE £400 MILLION WENT TO YOUR WIFE AND SONS COMPANY INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE RESORTS, SO REALLY WE DONT NEED TO KNOW MUCH MORE NOW DO WE……………
The advice and conclusions reached in the Report are, in our opinion, naïve and based on misinformation. After all of this time, we cannot fathom why. The Report’s conclusions are alarmist and extend to personal attacks on the Ames family, which is not considered necessary in a supposedly factual report assessing whether or not to enter into an investor trust. We have now reached an impasse with RL that we hope to navigate through. If not, we hope we have proved by this more detailed response that Harlequin is committed to fighting for its investors and providing the best future possible for its investors. As we have said above, the trust can still go ahead with the security intended to be used to protect investors. Whether or not this is with RL is yet to be seen.
OUR COMMENT; YOU LETTER HAS DONE NOTHING BUT DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU ARE A TOTALLY DELUDED FANTASIST, A LIAR, A HYPOCRITE AND TRUE TO FORM YOU HAVE CONTINUED TO DROP EVERYONE ELSE IN IT, REGULATORY LEGAL AND JIM BAKER NOW FOLLOW THE LONG LIST OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES YOU HAVE SOUGHT TO DESTROY.
RL AND GARETH FATCHETT NOW HAVE MANY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER, NO DOUBT IF THEY DO NOT TOE THE COMPANY LINE, YOU WILL SEEK RETRIBUTION THROUGH THE USE OF RECORDED CONVERSATIONS PERHAPS,
EITHER WAY THE TRUST IS DEAD, YOU ARE FINISHED, ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT WOULD NOW PUT THEIR TRUST (NO PUN INTENDED) IN YOU. YOU SOW WHAT YOU REAP YOU TWISTED BITTER DELUDED FOOL YOU.
Best regards,
Dave Ames
Chairman
BELOW IS THE RESPONSE FROM RL AND GARETH FATCHETT TO THE TOXIC TURDS MISSIVE LAST NIGHT.
AT LEAST RL RESPONDED IN A TIMELY MANNER AND DID NOT NEED A GAZILLION MONTHS TO RESPOND
RL AND GARETH FATCHETT RESPONDED VERY QUICKLY TO THE GARBLED RAMBLINGS OF THE TOXIC TOAD. SEE BELOW.
Harlequin Update
Regulatory Legal Solicitors on May 29, 2014 at 10:25pm
All, We have received the update. We are not surprised at the content nor the tone. We produced a detailed Interim Report for investors to consider.
Our Interim Report is just that. It could be amended if we were persuaded on material matters. Some minor matters were drawn to our attention via our SVG lawyers. Report amended and posted. Hardly unfair conduct.
The same applies to the other elements of our report. We will amend if necessary.Being lectured on accountability and transparency from a firm who refuse to allow investors to understand where £400m has been spent is galling.
We did not want to rely on the BBC Panorama figures. We would have preferred to use the James Baker figures, but we were not allowed to. We did not post the BBC Panorama response on BFP. We did copy it and put it to Harlequin that the figures were accurate. No response.
We had discussed paying for the RDC accounts to be brought up to date. That would have meant RL having access to all the underlying information (bank accounts etc). At that point, we were told we could pay, but we could not see the data.
Only a fool would have proceeded with the goodwill gesture at that point.
The suggestion we have not paid Pitmans fees is wrong. Pitmans client is Harlequin Hotels &Resorts (UK) Limited.
Not Regulatory Legal Solicitors. We were asked to pay £10k plus VAT as a contribution. This we have done. Any further payment would be on a goodwill basis from us. We are not feeling lots of goodwill at present.
We have consulted insolvency practitioners in the UK and abroad. Why would we not do that ?
We state in our report that Harlequin is arguably insolvent. We do not just make these statements lightly. We have no intention to buy or be part of any buying group. We are a solicitors practice, not a hotel operator !
We expected a backlash. We are not going to be deflected from our task which is to present the facts to clients. If a client wants to believe the “everything is brilliant” mantra, so be it. We will stick to our position and argue robustly and fairly. Investors would expect no less.
Julian Francis is an unelected unelectable member of SVG’s parliament, poked into parliament as a Senator after every election by his cousin the Prime Minister, perhaps and most likely against the wishes of the citizenship in general, and by rejection of the electorate in fact.