SVG High Court Registrar resigns suddenly – rumours flying about Harlequin connection

File this under “Breaking News… or Rumour?”

I-Witness News in St. Vincent and the Grenadines is reporting that the High Court Registrar (Tamara Marks) didn’t show up for work this morning (Friday 23 May 2014), and that she resigned.

BFP’s own source says it is rumour at the court that it has something to do with the Harlequin mess. Take that with a big chunk of sea salt, okay?

Registrar Tamara Marks is wife of former senator for the ruling Unity Labour Party, lawyer Ronald “Ronnie” Marks, who was himself arrested in 2013 in New York City for assaulting a police officer. Those charges were thrown out of court and Marks said he would sue the NYPD.

46 Comments

Filed under Crime & Law

46 responses to “SVG High Court Registrar resigns suddenly – rumours flying about Harlequin connection

  1. Working tools

    Another victim of the toxic toad?

  2. Anonymous

    As time draws closer and closer to an election Mr Ames will find
    that his “citizenship” and SVG passport will become more and
    more of a liability.

  3. OK WHAT IS GOING ON IN ST VINCENT DAVE AMES IS ALLOWED BREAK EVERY RULE, IS THIS WITH SANCTION FROM THE VERY TOP????? WE WILL SHOW YOU WHY WE THINK IT IS....

    ….

  4. DUE DILIGENCE PART 10 THE FILED ACCOUNTS AND INCOMPETENCE OR WORSE WHOLESALE CORRUPTION AMONGST THE ORGANS OF THE STATE OF ST. VINCENT POSSIBLY?

    DUE DILIGENCE PART 10 THE FILED ACCOUNTS AND INCOMPETENCE OR WORSE WHOLESALE CORRUPTION AMONGST THE ORGANS OF THE STATE OF ST. VINCENT POSSIBLY? WHEN WILL COMRADE RALPH REALISE THAT THE AMES TRAIN IS ABOUT TO COME CRASHING THROUGH THE CABINET OFFICE IN ST VINCENT…………..

    May 25, 2014 at 1:06 pm
    On the 24th day of February 2014 the Deputy Registrar of Companies in St. Vincent issued not one but two strike off notices for Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd.

    See (A) and (B) below.

    Both are still publicly available or were until the publication of this post.

    (A) https ://anonfiles dot com/file/3c6459991b97c58ed8419f4546fdd805

    (B) https ://anonfiles dot com/file/bd468da46c2e070fe3c7edc0411f87a8

    The Strike off notice (A) states that Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd is in default of its obligations in respect of;

    (1) The failure to file Certificates of Solvency / Financial Statements for the period April 30th 2011-2013.

    The Strike of notice (B) states that Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd is in default of its obligations in respect of;

    (1) The failure to file annual Returns for the years 2006-2012.

    (2) The failure to file Certificates of Solvency / Financial Statements for the period 2006-2012.

    Both Strike off notices appear to be inaccurate, but we do not believe this to be a mistake. We take a closer look.

    On the 19th of December 2012 Mr. Sam Commissiong*** filed three annual returns for Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd for the years 2009,2010 and 2011.

    See (C), (D) and (E) below.

    These returns were Registered with the Commercial Intellectual Property Office in St. Vincent on the 29th of January 2013.

    (C) https ://anonfiles dot com/file/dfe5d65aa3c40e3d515b5e3989f77fca

    (D) https ://anonfiles dot com/file/0a85d04cdc236b3beffd5f65a4f01908

    (E) https ://anonfiles dot com/file/6a61059bb4e9b1e3cede5f0321c28e21

    *** (More on this guy later and the fact that the Hon Rene Baptiste, CMG, President St.Vincent and the Grenadines Bar Association has swept the allegations of perjury against Sam Commissiong under the carpet,)

    At section (9) of the Annual Returns, under the heading “Financial Statements”, Sam Commissiong has stated the following,

    That the assets of the company exceed $2,000,000.00
    And
    That “NO” Financial statements have been filed for the company in respect of the reporting period.

    SVG Companies Act 1994, section 154 requires any company which has assets over EC$2m to have the accounts audited.

    See http ://svgfsa dot com/pdf/svg_co_act.pdf for a copy of the Act. s 154 refers back to s 149, which is the section that deals with auditors.

    On the 28th of December 2012 Harlequin filed “Unaudited” Financial Statements in St. Vincent for Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd. for the financial years ending 30th April 2009, 30th April 2010 and 30th April 2011,
    see (F,G and H below),

    These accounts were registered by the Commercial and Intellectual Property Office in St. Vincent on the 2nd of January 2013. It has to be noted that the “Unaudited” Accounts for 2008 for Harlequin Property SVG Ltd have “NOT” been filed or more importantly had not been filed as of the 2nd of January 2013.

    (F) https ://anonfiles dot com/file/f52fb74d56a5f595107a0a9f380c6eca

    (G) https ://anonfiles dot com/file/265afabacadc12f33df8e11a3cfc4203

    (H) https ://anonfiles dot com/file/4a12240c12a610ba0a3d69264ae92376

    The law in St. Vincent however requires that the Accounts to be filed are audited if the companies assets exceed EC $ 2,000,000.00 (Two Million Dollars) see Act sections 149-154 in the PDF above.

    The accounts that Harlequin have filed are “not audited”, so a question has to be asked as to why the CIPO accepted the Harlequin Accounts.

    The Accounts are also to be accompanied by Certificates of Solvency, the accounts that Harlequin filed do not have these.

    The Law also states the accounts have to be filed chronologically, yet the 2008 “Unaudited” accounts were never filed.

    Can Jim Baker the accountant for Harlequin explain this?

    We have issues and we raise very serious questions as to the filing of the returns accounts and Certificates of Status.

    Let us go back to the filing of the annual returns by Mr. Commissiong.

    (1) These were filed with the Commercial Intellectual Property Office in St. Vincent on the 19th of December 2012, stating as in above that the accounts had not been filed, yet nine days later the “Unaudited” accounts get filed.

    Sam Commissiong can therefore state with conviction that he has done nothing wrong, by clearly stating that the accounts were not filed on the date that he filed the returns.

    But what was the hurry to file the returns just nine days ahead of filing the “Unaudited” accounts, and over the Christmas Holiday period. Commissiong was late by 3,2 and 1 year respectively in filing the returns, so what was the rush?

    Sam Commissiong knew that if he filed the annual returns after the filing of the “Unaudited accounts” he still would have had to state At section (9) of the Annual Returns, under the heading “Financial Statements”, section (d) That “NO” Financial statements have been filed for the company in respect of the reporting period.

    Sam Commission understands the law in St. Vincent requires the Harlequin Property (SVG) Accounts to be audited. The filed accounts were not.
    Had the date of the submittal of the Annual returns post dated the date of the submittal of the “Unaudited accounts” it would have put beyond doubt that the accounts filed by Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd, were not valid.

    What is also interesting to note is that it took the Commercial and Intellectual Property Office in St. Vincent 40, forty days to register the annual returns, again they were filed on the 19th of December 2012 and registered on the 28th of January 2013.

    Yet the “unaudited” accounts were filed with the Commercial and Intellectual Property Office on Friday the 28th of December 2012 and registered the following working day that being Tuesday the 2nd of January 2013.

    Apparently the accounts were not checked against the annual returns, which had they been, would have clearly shown that the “unaudited” accounts should not have been filed.

    Again refer to section (9) of the Annual Returns, under the heading “Financial Statements”, Sam Commissiong has stated the following,
    “That the assets of the company exceed $2,000,000.00” meaning that under St. Vincent company law the accounts for the company need to be audited.

    Of course the Commercial and Intellectual Property Office in St. Vincent will state that they did not have any registered Annual Returns for Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd on the date the “unaudited” accounts were filed and thus this they believe will exonerate them from any wrong doing.

    But how can they explain that they registered accounts for 2009, 2010 and 2011 yet had not received any accounts for 2008, as is required under St. Vincent company law.

    And then we have the very strange circumstances surrounding the issuing of the two “Certificates of status for Harlequin Property SVG issued on the 24th of February 2014. We wonder what phone calls were made that day?

    If all the above happened in the UK or any other normal country there would be a major investigation into what appears to be massive incompetence or worse corruption on the part of organs of the state.

    But we are talking about St. Vincent where the Government have stated that Buccament Bay is of “National Importance”.

    But maybe Comrade Ralph should consider this as he enters his election months, Ames is being investigated for Fraudulent Activities in excess of EC$ 1,817,556,000.00 One Billion, Eight hundred and Seventeen Million, Five Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand EC Dollars, the amount that his so called “INVESTORS” have lost.

    What kind of a legacy will this be for Comrade Ralph even more so that the integrity of organs of the State of St. Vincent are now being brought into question.

    Will it really have been worth bending the laws of St. Vincent for a bent little conman from Essex. Will this instill confidence amongst future overseas investors and investment in St. Vincent, and will this not give the opposition and opponents of your regime huge ammunition against you in this your election year.

    Unless you distance yourself from the little conman, you too Mr. Gosalves will become another victim of the Toxic Toad.

  5. Anonymous

    Surely this marks the end for Ames. How can anyone possibly contemplate waiving rights in return for an asset located in a country where Ames is protected through massive corruption.

    Enough is enough.

  6. Disgusted

    Protected yes, the question is for how long?

  7. Anonymous.

    Id like to know what Mr. Eustace will make of this. The Comrade may have gone just a little to far this time.

    Yes the Comrade may just become another victim of the Toxic Toad.

  8. The magnificent seven

    Fatchett, O’ Halloran, Newman, Walton,Crozier, and Dave Man recently had a meeting, with a surprise guest Mr. Simon Terry.

  9. DUE DILIGENCE PART 11 THE AUTHORITIES IN ST. VINCENT GOING ALL OUT TO COVER AMES' BACKSIDE, IS THE TOXIC TOAD WORTH IT RALPH, IS HE. HE WILL DESTROY YOUR LEGACY, HE WILL.

    Below is a letter sent to Ms Rene M Baptiste on the 10th of April 2014, President of the St Vincent and the Grenadines Bar Association.

    Ms. Baptiste has let it be known in St. Vincent that she feels that Mr Commissiong has nothing to be answerable for.

    We hope Ms. Baptiste has a very strong rethink on the matter. The gloves
    are fast coming off and the Good People of St. Vincent only have Mr. Ames to thank for the shit storm about to be unleashed.

    Ms. Baptiste is the toxic toad from Basildon really worth it, we have it on very good authority that an investigative program on Ames and Harlequin will be going to air very shortly,

    Miss Rene M Baptiste
    President of the St Vincent and the Grenadines Bar Association
    92 Granby Street
    Methodist Commercial Building
    PO Box 577
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    VC0100 St Vincent and the Grenadines 10th April 2014

    cc Miss Rene M Baptiste
    2211 Kingstown Park
    Kingstown
    St Vincent and the Grenadines

    Dear Madam,

    COMPLAINT AGAINST : SAMUEL E COMMISSIONG ATTORNEY AT LAW
    of : S E Commissiong & Co Law Firm, Kingston, St. Vincent & The Grenadines

    We, a group of Claimants currently involved in civil litigation in the High Court in London, (Davies & Others v. David Ames & Carol Ames), in which ownership of land at Buccament Bay, St. Vincent & The Grenadines, is in dispute, hereby lodge a formal complaint against Samuel E Commissiong.

    Mr Commissiong has given evidence on the ownership of the land at Buccament Bay on two separate occasions, under Oath in the Irish Commercial Court in 2013, and subsequently in a signed Witness Statement supported by a Statement of Truth, on 10th February 2014, to the High Court in London, in our present litigation.

    However, the evidence provided by Mr Commissiong on both occasions is inconsistent and also conflicts with a signed Witness Statement subsequently provided by his client, whom he was and currently is, employed by, being Mr David Ames and his companies, Harlequin Property SVG Ltd. and Harlequin Hotels & Resorts Ltd.

    The land at Buccament Bay was acquired in various plots, sometime between 2006 and 2012. Mr Commissiong, or his firm, acted in the purchase of the land in those various plots and it is therefore particularly troubling that he has given contradictory and apparently incorrect evidence relating to the size and ownership of those landholdings in the above-mentioned proceedings.

    We should like to draw your attention to the following enclosed documents:

    Document 1:
    Statement by Chris Corney, partner at Carter Lemon Camerons LLP in London, with attached transcript of the Irish Court case in 2013. At page 77/78, Mr Commissiong is being cross examined on the ownership of the land at Buccament Bay:

    Q. “So did he [Mr Ames] buy the land in his own name”
    A: “Yes”
    Q: “In his personal name”
    A: “Yes”
    Q: “Not in the Harlequin company name at all?”
    A: “no, no, no, no”

    Mr Commissiong later confirmed in the same proceedings that Mr Ames personally owns 12 and a half acres of the 32 acres.

    However, upon examination of the registered and unregistered titles, none of the plots (either individually or collectively) amount to either 12 and a half acres or 32 acres and in fact, the only land registered is 19.05 acres, in the name of Harlequin Property SVG Ltd., which Samuel Commissiong, or his firm, acted in the purchase of.

    Document 2:
    Mr Commissiong’s signed Witness Statement of 10th February 2014, in support of David Ames defence in the current litigation in the High Court in London. We would draw your particular attention to paragraph 8.

    Document 3:
    David Ames’ signed Witness Statement of 10th March 2014, correcting Mr Commissiong’s affidavit of 10th February.

    Document 4:
    Letter from Mr Commissiong dated 5 Jan 2009 addressed to David Ames stating:
    “By this letter we wish to confirm that Harlequin Property(SVG) Limited now owns the unencumbered fee simple of the first 40 acres of land on which the Buccament Bay Resort is developed….These lands have been fully paid for and deeded by the Government of Saint Vicent and The Grenadines and adjoining owners of the development. There is a concluded Agreement to purchase an additional 39 acres of land.”

    Document 5:
    Letter from Carter Lemon Camerons to Mr Commissiong
    On the 1st April 2014, Carter Lemon Camerons emailed a letter to Mr Commissiong, inviting him to explain the inconsistencies in his evidence as to the legal ownership of land at Buccament Bay.

    To date, Mr Commissiong has failed to respond to this letter or to provide any explanation as to the inconsistencies in his evidence given under Oath in the Dublin Court in 2013 and his recent affidavit of the 10th February 2014.

    We write, therefore, to ask that this matter be investigated by the Bar Association of SVG and for an explanation to be provided as to these inconsistencies. Having regard to the Code of Ethics made on the 12th December 1988 by the Disciplinary Committee under Section 18 of the Legal Profession Act we believe that Mr Commissiong is in breach of:

    Part 11 of the code:
    “An Attorney-at-law must maintain his integrity and the honour and dignity of the legal profession and of his own standing”, AND

    Part VII of the code:
    “Where in any matter explicit ethical guidance does not exist, an attorney-at-law must act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the legal system”

    Since Mr Commissiong is the St. Vincent & The Grenadines Land Registry attorney and since he, or his firm acted in the purchase of the land plots at Buccament Bay, we are very are surprised that he has given the above conflicting evidence and further, that he has made no attempt to correct his position, particularly since he is aware of the importance of providing evidence of the correct and true ownership of the land at Buccament Bay in the present litigation.

    We trust that you will give this complaint your serious consideration and we should be very grateful for your earliest response, as the true position regarding ownership of the land is a serious concern in the present litigation and also for those investors who are currently in the process of completing on their purchase of properties at Buccament Bay, in the hope of obtaining clean title over land which is either unregistered or simply not legally owned by the seller in their purchase contracts.
    We look forward to hearing from you.
    Claimants in : Davies & Others v. David Ames & Carol Ames (HQ13X02764)

    Return Address:
    Davies & Others
    c/o Carter Lemon Camerons LLP
    10 Aldersgate Street
    London EC1A 4HJ

  10. Anonymous

    Want to bet Ames blames Commissong for everything! Those damn lawyers never get it right!

  11. DUE DILIGENCE PART 12 CORRUPTION IN THE SVG LAND REGISTRY OFFICE AND SVG COURT SERVICE????? LOOKS LIKE THE TOXIC TOAD IS CAUSING HUGE WAVES NOW WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. HE IS NOT WORTH IT FOLKS, FEED HIM TO THE LIONS BEFORE HE BRINGS YOU ALL DOWN.

    The following is a partial list of Incumbrances obtained on the registered land at Buccament Bay, you will note that they are stamped, “Original Document lodged at the Registry High Court St. Vincent and the Grenadines,” but when you ask the registrar, well surprise surprise the documents are not filed.

    Let us also remind you that Harlequin’s attorney Mr. Sam Commissiong is also the St. Vincent & The Grenadines Land Registry attorney.

    Mr. Commissiong has in the past obstructed requests for information pertaining to the lands owned by Ames and Harlequin at Buccament Bay.

    How many more people are going to loose their jobs because of the toxic toad.

    And Commissiong has serious questions to answer,

    When will Gonsalves wake up and realize that the Toxic Toad will destroy his legacy, or is Gonsalves in bed with Ames as was intimated by the BBC, without a firm no bullshit statement from Gonsalves distancing himself from the toxic toad, one can only suspect that the BBC allegations had some element of truth to them. As they say there is no smoke without fire, in this case it seems the Island is burning.

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/10b8cbb8dde91b23ff25f894258b63ba

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/4872d40b380b702e5f74a0aeb3bb81ab

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/764069567135c357aaa9c2830c486018

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/74ab1fa97cf295674039a5b119b8841f

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/4c5c24e222b2be8b8e4696278553b9e2

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/c75cc0131c9dc1fa1ee349ff910e9142

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/211b2cd4743756d19cced0e3e0d066fc

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/409a6380a790339bed4b91a93e2a3256

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/7ad35579cb58441e83d35d4683feae68

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/fc1aff47aa58d99e1b8083aa6dc976a6

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/cacde98c4d5edd74814c0c7fbc1dafe3

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/2e37ce7c54a80637f41ad6465c8cf0ef

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/e61b2d246c274ddb2fd56f29990527b8

  12. Anonymous

    Caribbean Prime Ministers have stood up to David and Carol Ames in the past, these emails from a few years ago demonstrate this. See below an email exchange between David and Carol Ames and the late Prime Minister of Barbados David Thompson.Should not the Hon, Ralph Gonsalves take the same stance has one of his former Caribbean peers,

    From: “Carol Ames”
    Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:10:16 +0100

    To: ;

    Subject: Merricks, Barbados
    Dear Hartley

    Could you please forward this e-mail to the Prime Minister.

    Dear Prime Minister,

    As I have been saying to you, the delay being caused by your country’s delay in processing the planning approval for Merricks is causing bad press for your country as well as Harlequin. I enclose a copy of an article written in the Investor’s Chronicle, which is part of the Financial Times in London, that has just appeared and, as you can see, Merricks and Barbados are being highlighted in a bad way.

    As I told you when we met, this will get worse and I feel that if we do not resolve this issue in a very short while, all our investors will be withdrawing all their funds from your country. Please be aware that if this happens, I will be defending my position and my Company’s interest in this matter, which will only do more damage to your country and will make it difficult for further investment from other parties to invest in Barbados, as it is a small world and you will find it harder for inward investment if this type of bad publicity continues.

    Your High Commissioner from the UK, Mr Hugh Anthony Arthur, who attended the Harlequin Hotels & Resorts launch in July, told our investors of your country’s support for the project and we now feel that actions would be better than words.

    Your help in this would be greatly appreciated because now I feel your country is going to be affected even more if this issue is not resolved quickly.

    Kind regards,
    Dave Ames
    Regards,
    Carol Ames

    —————————————————————————-
    From: David Thompson [mailto:thompy@caribsurf.com]

    Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 8:41 AM

    To: ‘hartleyhenry@gmail.com’ Subject: RE: Merricks, Barbados Hartley,

    The article by Investor’s Chronicle is quite easily rebuttable. I am sure that no prudent investor would make such an investment without someone having held out to them that the approvals would be granted and no promoter should hold out that such and investment is sound until Planning Permissions are granted. I will be in London later this month and I will take the opportunity to speak with the Financial Times and other newspapers to clear up and attribution of blame to Barbados, if necessary.

    Secondly, the Cabinet has discussed Harlequin twice in the past month. The Town Planning Department has advised that a Town Hall Meeting must be held and they have been dealing with an entity called Robertson Ward Associates. I am surprised that Ames is unaware of this.

    Since our meeting I have taken the following action (1) directed HE Barbados’ High Commissioner to London to attend the Harlequin event (this may unwittingly have been an error as Tony’s favourable comments are now ironically to be used as a sword against Barbados) (2) Fast-tracked the matter by placing it before the Infrastructure Committee of Cabinet (3) I had just agreed to add to my itinerary a meeting with Harlequin’s principals in the UK on my visit later this month ( will not now be doing this as I do not intend to have Barbados further embroiled in Harlequin’s financial strategy based on the underlying threat of bad publicity) (4) I had agreed with the St. Vincent government to go on a visit to the project in St. Vincent with our Town Planning officials to give them a sense of the project. (This is will also not now be doing).

    I wish you to let Mr. Ames know that I do not stand for nonsense from foreign investors. Barbados welcomes them but not at any price, not under any threat and not by duress. Perhaps the difference between me and some who held this job before me is that I was born in London – very much understand the British culture – and I am not a novice at reading between the lines of that email.

    Barbados is not yet embroiled in his financial scheme except that the property on which the houses are to be built – and for which no TCP permission has been granted – is in Barbados. I will not hesitate to defend our country’s honour and I propose to start to do so based on the email you passed to me.

    David Thompson

  13. End game.

    I feel content, wonder if Harlequin feel the same. Proceeds of crime?

  14. Anonymous

    My respect for David Thompson has grown immensely.

  15. UPDATE UPDATE

    Police chief notified as AG asks Registrar to resign

    UPDATE http ://www.iwnsvg DOT com/2014/05/26/police-chief-notified-as-ag-asks-registrar-to-resign/

  16. Anonymous

    What are the duties of the Registrar of The High Court in SVG?
    Could she be bribed to back-date date stamps for example?

  17. JESUS CHRIST .......................JUST WHEN WE THOUGHT WE HAD SEEN IT ALL......... DEEP SHIT TIME..........

    £34,747,377.00 commissions for Harlequin staff and the Ames family, on top of wages and dividends, properties in Dubai and Villas in Buccament Bay wow, again we say wow, “WOW”………….

    That’s XCD $158,014,447.48 in Commissions for the Ames family and the trusted staff at Harlequin’s Basildon UK HQ. Wow Wow Wow Wow………….

    And XCD 88,676,671.21, £19.5 Million owing to the UK Tax man, Wow, Wow, Wow, Wow,…………

    No wonder Ames is desperate for a trust and CVA, yikes, ,

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/7eb8c28b781f68f9e4e0af09f45de843

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/bfcf621adf6b65d217ebf7b05cdfc749

    https ://anonfiles dot com/file/f371195121a0b443b6b016b797c55ae6

  18. Anonymous

    Wasn’t it tax evasion that brought down Al Capone and got Lucky
    Lucciano deported.

  19. Anonymous

    @Jesus…Cant connect to any of those anon files

  20. JESUS CHRIST .......................JUST WHEN WE THOUGHT WE HAD SEEN IT ALL......... DEEP SHIT TIME..........

    THERE IS A SPACE BETWEEN Https :// so just close the gap.

    also replace the word dot with .

  21. Anonymous

    Ok thanks…Jesus! This is mind blowing..the first file shows Deposits received, Commissions paid, therefore Funds available to buy land and build resorts!..Surely this is an admission that it is investors` money that was used to buy land, even at a time when they were being told that that the land was already purchased..What a Business Model.

  22. The Tax Man Cometh

    Wait until you get the the really exciting document …

    £19.5m unpaid tax!

  23. JESUS CHRIST .......................JUST WHEN WE THOUGHT WE HAD SEEN IT ALL......... DEEP SHIT TIME..........

    Ames paid less than 1% of monies you “COULD” state as not coming from Caribbean purchaser funds for land purchases in the Caribbean, But even this Less than 1% is subject of a dispute………

    The Tax Man now becomes the single biggest unsecured creditor of HMSSE, so no CVA,

    Why do you think Ames is taking on Wilkins Kennedy, (oops did I mention Wilkins Kennedy, jeez looks like I just did) because he will state that they prepared the accounts incorrectly and he was unaware of this massive tax liability,

    Ames has Mr. Gareth Fatchett to thank for the missing piece of the financial jigsaw with respect to the HMSSE accounts.

    This story still has a little ways to go, the damage wreaked by the toxic little turd, sorry toad will leave some legacy in its wake. No actually turd is better.

    Sadly the financial destruction the turd will leave in his wake will also affect the good people of St. Vincent for along time to come. Any Legacy the Hon. Dr. Ralph Gonsalves was hoping to leave could sadly be dwarfed by the turds actions. This is one of the biggest financial scandals in the Caribbean second only to that of Mr. Alan Stanford in Antigua.

    And then we have Mr. Gareth Ronan and Mr. David Campion who might better be employed in a launderette,

    More on these two later, They of course will state that they were only employees of Mr. Ames and their directorships meant nothing,

  24. Anonymous

    Jesus why are two of the documents called Exhibits? Or do I know the answer already😦

  25. Tax Expert, Its even worse then the documents show..

    Re tax/NIC. HMRC could claim that the £34.7m in staff commissions was a net payment (i.e. they are entitled to assume that the cash was just that, in the absence of anyone showing that they declared it on their own tax returns and paid the tax on it). In that case, conservatively the tax and NIC due would be c.£33.5m, plus penalties (probably levied at around 50% of the tax lost on the basis that this was willful) and interest – perhaps another 20%. All up, HMRC’s claim could be in the region on £55m – £60m. That would give them a huge say in any liquidation or CVA.

  26. Robert Storey

    Why do you think there will be no CVA just because the tax man is the largest creditor?

  27. Anonymous

    When your liabilities exceed your assets,
    Jail is where your ass sets…..

  28. Anonymous

    Mr.Storey I do hope you have been following the information being provided on these threads with respect to the financial conduct of Harlequin, the latest leaked documents are called exhibits, and they were not destined for a museum, HMRC will call for the liquidation of the company, given that HMSSE will not be in a position to pay is debts as they fall due.

  29. Anonymous

    It was posted earlier today that Mr. Storey is out of his depth.
    Add to that an inability to accept reality.

  30. Reality check?

    Could the tenacious Pro harlequin Bob &Bob finally think he has been led a merry dance like the rest of us?

  31. Reality check?

    SFO, HMRC, Police, unhappy customers, insolvency services,FSCS, how can any company survive than – get real…… it’s over; well and truly.

  32. I'm confused.

    @Tax Expert, Its even worse then the documents show..

    For the simpletons ( like me)

    Could you please explain how you work out this tax problem?

    Are you saying Harlequin staff have been paid commission and not paid tax on it? If so how do you know?

  33. Anon

    Simple my Dear Watson simple, The tax due to be paid does not appear in the audited accounts for HMSSE😉

  34. Anonymous

    The following was posted by Regulatory Legal Solicitors on May 27, 2014 at 10:06am (We are certain that they will correct this mistake and believe their post has to have been a computer glitch)

    Their post along with the “computer glitch” was supposed to be in response to this post on BFP. “£34,747,377.00 commissions for Harlequin staff and the Ames family, on top of wages and
    dividends, properties in Dubai and Villas in Buccament Bay wow, again we say wow,
    “WOW”………….”

    Post from RL below.

    Regulatory Legal Solicitors May 27, 2014 at 10:06am

    “We have seen no evidence of this. HMSSE is applying for “Terminal Loss Relief” via Shipleys.
    Therefore, this suggests a loss. A loss and a big profit at the same time seems unlikely.”

    For the record PAYE/NI liability does not just arise only when there’s a
    profit, and a terminal loss relief claim DOES NOT MEAN that there can’t be any unpaid PAYE.

    We assume the accountants employed by Regulatory Legal Solicitors as part of their Due Dilligence process will correct the RL statement above once they come back from their mid term vacation or the RL computer technicians will correct the fault with the post.

    FYI RL we have noticed that you appear to having a similar computer glitch with other posts…… maybe you need to look into it,

    Some one in the office here called the RL post above utter utter bollocks, we have explained to them that the RL post was a Technical Glitch as there is no way a respected firm of Solicitors such as RL would make an unequivocal statement like the one above…………….

    The person who posted the following on the RL forum does have some understanding of the madness which is Harlequin, Goodman / woman whoever you are as we say “propriétaire”……….

    We have added some comments;

    May 27, 2014 at 11:13am

    If they’ve paid dividends then they’ve claimed a profit- yes? One question is- were profits legally accounted for and declared?

    OUR COMMENT; SHIPLEYS LLP HAVE PROVIDED A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITES OF THE DIRECTORS OF HMSSE TO CIB.

    In Ames world hiving off 50% of investors money as income is considered legitimate earned income, out of this he took huge sums to pay
    “overheads”. These include massive salaries, commissions etc.

    OUR COMMENT; REGULATORY LEGAL HAVE THE ACCOUNTS AND THE COMMISSIONS PAID, WE HAVE BEEN HANDED SOME ADDITIONAL DATA THAT REGULATORY LEGAL MAY HAVE NOT HAD THE BENEFIT OF SEEING AND THIS DATA OF COURSE FURTHER ADDS PIECES TO THE FINANCIAL JIG SAW, WE WILL OF COURSE MAKE THIS DATA AVAILABLE SHORTLY. WE SUSPECT THAT ON SIGHT IF THIS ADDITIONAL DATA THE ACCOUNTANTS WORKING ON THE FINANCIAL DUE DILIGENCE FOR REGULATORY LEGAL WILL COME UP WITH THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS WE AND OTHERS HAVE.

    Then what’s left he called profit and declares dividend….and hives off another £4mil plus of your money. Anyway its all hyperbole. What we need is the Shipley’s audit.

    OUR COMMENT; WE DOUBT SHIPLEYS WILL CONDUCT ANY FINANCIAL AUDIT UNLESS SOMEONE COMES UP WITH THE CASH TO PAY THEM, INDEED IF THEY ARE NOT GETTING PAID WHY SHOULD THEY, LETS NOT FORGET THEY ARE CURRENTLY OWED C £165,000 BY THE AMES FAMILY FOR MONEY THE AMES FAMILY TECHNICALLY STOLE FROM SHIPLEYS, THAT BEING THE MONEY FROM THE SALE OF A VILLA IN DUBAI, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH AMES KNEW WAS NOT HIS TO USE.

    IN THE SAME WAY WE DO NOT SEE SHIPLEYS SPENDING ANYTIME OR MONEY CHALLENGING ANY HMRC ASSESSMENT ON THE TAX OWING ON ANY STAFF COMMISSIONS FOR THE SAME REASONS AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SHIPLEYS WILL JUST ADD HMRC TO THE UNSECURED CREDITOR FILE, WHICH WHEN TIME COMES FOR A DECISION ON A CVA WILL GIVE HMRC BASICALLY A CASTING VOTE.

    WE SUSPECT THAT THE ACCOUNTANTS FOR REGULATORY LEGAL WILL CONCUR WITH ALL WE ARE SAYING ON THE MATTER WHEN THEY COME BACK FROM THEIR MID TERM BREAK,

    NO POINT IN ASKING GARETH FATCHET, HE IS A SOLICITOR NOT AN ACCOUNTANT OR TAX ADVISOR, AND HE WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE FINANCIAL ADVICE OR ADVICE ON HARLEQUIN MATTERS FINANCIALLY, FUNNY WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THOSE IMMORTAL WORDS BEFORE……

    In this murky world until we see the professional big picture, a profit and a loss at the same time make perfect sense, in that’s so far as its all nonsensical!

    OUR COMMENT: WE AGREE.

  35. Anonymous

    HMRC won’t just reject the CVA because they are a creditor. If they are the only creditor then they will, if they are one of many creditors they will only vote it down if another creditor does. If all the other creditors vote for the CVA then HMRC will go along with it.

  36. Anonymous

    FROM RL.

    Regulatory Legal Solicitors > · May 26, 2014 at 1:45pm
    BFP posts lots of information anonymously. We are upfront

    OUR COMMENT; HMMMMMM NOT TOTALLY UPFRONT, SORRY RL BUT THIS HAS TO BE SAID AND IN VERY STRONG TERMS, IT IS TIME YOU HIRED SOME ACCOUNTANTS AND STOP FUCKING AROUND WITH PURCHASERS HOPES AND DREAMS.

    AND NO NEED FOR A TYPICAL SMART ASS SARCASTIC RESPONSE.

    THE TAX SYNOPSIS GIVEN ON YOUR FORUM WITH REFERENCE TO HARLEQUIN IS JUST WRONG, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

  37. anonymous

    hope HMRC take a good long look at the accounts of not only harlequin companies but also the major players in this. the commissions have been massive but from info on companies house very few of the accounts have been audited. (over the turnover threshold but under the employed threshold to require an audit , maybe because the vast majority of advisers are/were on the books as s/employed?

  38. Anonymous

    And so it goes …

  39. DUE DILIGENCE 14 THE END GAME, ALL WE CAN SAY IS JESUS CHRIST, YES JESUS CHRIST

    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

  40. Loose Coggle

    Anon – the HMSSE accounts show profit. However, there is a terminal loss relief claim going on.

    What you are saying is that the staff at HMSSE worked on a self employed basis, when in fact they should have been subject to the PAYE regime.

    No one has access to the Self Assessment Returns of the individuals. How do you know if they did or did not declare their earnings ?

    We may be talking at cross purposes. If you are saying the tax should have been paid through the PAYE system, then you may be right. However, it appears that HMRC do not agree. They are not a creditor with HMSSE in any magnitude.

    Technical point, but one we all need to consider.

  41. DUE DILIGENCE 15 THE END GAME, SO GARETH FATCHETT HAS MISUSED CLIENT FUNDS, SEE OUR COMMENTS, ITS OVER, IT NOW HAS TO BE. GOODNIGHT

    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

  42. RL RESPOND TO THE GARBLED RAMBLINGS OF THE TOXIC TURD, THEIR RESPONSE SEEMS ON THE FACE OF IT TO BE CREDIBLE.

    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.

  43. Game set and match

    Over on the RL forum, they are going to oust Ames – bloody brilliant🙂

  44. Bob a job

    The toxic turd and his bent legal team will finally be flushed down the shitter where they belong.

    When will Bob Storeeey learn his mate has had one big crap over his baldy head?

  45. Who wants to be a leader?

    Lemmings are only followers, not leaders. So who is leading the lemmings? GF? Once the redress claims start the lemmings will be cast adrift. So who is going to oust DA?

  46. Investors or SFO?

    The investor will oust him, who knows the SFO may get there first?