Harlequin victims hit with new lawsuit from Guardian SIPP

Abandoned Harlequin H Hotel is a testament to Barbados politicians' greed and incompetence.

Abandoned Harlequin H Hotel is a testament to Barbados politicians’ greed and incompetence.

Many “investors” in Dave Ames’ Harlequin ponzi scheme lost everything they had and more. Many of the gullible mortgaged their homes to “invest” in Harlequin, and relied upon the promises of Harlequin’s sales representatives. But the sales people knew that no legitimate investment could afford to pay the commissions that Harlequin was paying it’s representatives.

Now after losing everything, Harlequin victims are set to lose even more as Guardian SIPP is suing the investors for non-payment of the fees related to their self-invested personal pension.

Who is to blame for the mess?

Start with David Ames – but lined up with Ames should be the Government of Barbados, that allowed Harlequin companies to get away without oversight, accountability, annual filings and statements for the entire time. And our Government allowed Ames to acquire and start projects with zero oversight or consideration as to whether Ames had the means to finish those projects. As a result, the ‘H’ Hotel and Merricks projects look like bombed out disaster sites that are a testament to the greed and incompetence of the Bajan political class. Another Barbados property investment disaster that sends the wrong message to the world.

It’s fine to say that Ames and his crooked friends are responsible – but they couldn’t have done it without the wholesale purchase of willing politicians in Barbados and throughout the Caribbean.

Professional Adviser: Guardian sues Harlequin investors over SIPP fees

14 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Business & Banking, Consumer Issues, Corruption, Crime & Law, Offshore Investments, Politics & Corruption, Real Estate

14 responses to “Harlequin victims hit with new lawsuit from Guardian SIPP

  1. Party Animal

    Are HARLEQUIN and CLICO first Cousins ?

  2. Nothing is going to work in B’dos until we have new elections, & get these incompetent politicians out, with the central bank governor.

  3. Wily Coyote

    “Are HARLEQUIN and CLICO first Cousins ?”

    No they are not cousins but two whores in bed with some corrupt politicians.

  4. Anon

    Legal Eagle on January 19, 2015 at 11:08 pm
    For the Attn. of All those interested parties.

    I would like to thank Robert Storey for raising the very interesting issue about the role played by Wilkins Kennedy, if it were not for Robert we might all remain ignorant of certain facts as are contained in the statement of claim produced by David Edward Ames and his excellent legal Team, Hefin Rees QC and the team at ELS Legal LLP headed up by Richard Spector.

    However I could give you the short legal answer, that being no, this does not suggest that Wilkins Kennedy were accountants for Harlequin.

    However it appears that you may not understand the nature of “Harlequin” or more importantly the companies Dave and Carol Ames control.

    So it is important to explain this.

    (1). There is no such legal entity as Harlequin, no company owned by any of the Ames family is called Harlequin.

    It does not exist, nor has it ever.

    (2). Each and every company owned in part or outright by any member of the Ames family or any combination of Ames family members are all seperate and distinct either trading or dormant companies.

    Between them the Ames family own or control dozens of companies, some trading ( insolvently or otherwise) some dormant.

    I have not used the term ‘legally’ trading given the insolvent nature of the companies as per the report of James Albert Baker.

    There is no connection between any of the companies. They are all wholly seperate entities.

    ‘Harlequin’ is often referred to as a Group by Ames and others, but there is no such entity as the ‘Harlequin’ group as a matter of law.

    This was further demonstrated in the case RL took against two of the Ames’ companies in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court, on the 29th of July 2014. in the matter of Buccament Bay Resort Ltd. and Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd and the Insolvency Act 1986.

    In this case both Dave Ames and his in house solicitor demonstrated to the court that the companies were distinct and seperate,
    indeed they clearly demonstrated to the court that HMSSE was merely an intermediary which recieved funds and passed them onto the companies in the Caribbean.
    This is very important in the context of your post and the relationship between Wilkins Kennedy and companies owned or under the control of the Ames family.

    The Administrators of HMSSE (now in liquidation) apparently did not feel that taking a case against Wilkins Kennedy would be prudent,
    this is interesting given the assertions by Dave Ames that the outcome of the case being taken by his other companies against Wilkins Kennedy is a foregone conclusion.

    Wilkins Kennedy were the Auditors for HMSSE, however there are no invoices from Wilkins Kennedy to HMSSE produced in the claim.

    Now you refer to the description of the invoice as written in the Harlequin submission and indeed you have provided the quote from the Harlequin submission,

    “In connection with accountancy and ongoing budgets and cashflow budgets for all of the Harlequin developments”

    This raises a number of questions?

    (1). If as you correctly point out Harlequin are stating that this invoice is for all of the Harlequin developments, why is it that only one of the Resort Development Companies is suing Wilkins Kennedy, that being Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd. ?

    There were 6 RDC’s and given Mr. Ames and Mr. Regans assertions in the UK High Court that all the companies are seperate entities why is only one RDC company suing Wilkins Kennedy?

    Wilkins Kennedy are also being sued by Harlequin Hotels & Resorts the Cayman Island company, but Wilkins Kennedy are seeking to strike that company off as a claimant.
    Wilkins Kennedy sent no invoices to this company as per the statement of claim, nor is this company mentioned by Wilkins Kennedy in any of the invoices submitted to either Harlequin Property SVG Ltd or Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd.

    (2). You quote from a fee note / invoice from Wilkins Kennedy to a company called Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd.

    (2a.) Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd. does not exist. It is not a company.

    (2b.) Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd. is not a plaintiff in the case.

    (2c.) There are 9 Invoices from Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd. from the 29th June 2007 to April the 30th 2009.

    Given that all the companies owned by Ames are distinctly separate legal entities and given that Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd,
    aside from the fact that it does not exist,
    is not a plaintiff company,
    nor is it an RDC (Resort Development Company),
    what evidentiary value do these exhibits have, and I suspect that Kennedy’s the insurers solicitors will seek to have this evidence struck out on the basis that it is irrelevant to the proceedings as have been taken by the plaintiff companies.

    The question I suppose that has to be asked next is,
    why were invoices being sent to a company that did or does not exist? And why were these invoices paid ? These invoices were being generated for close to two years, so I doubt that this can be put down to a typo.
    Indeed what company paid these invoices?
    Did Ames ask Wilkins Kennedy to send invoices to a company that does not exist ? If so why ?

    Robert you have raised some really interesting points here in your tenacity to obtain comprehensive responses.

    Is this why Wilkins Kennedy reported Ames and his companies to the SFO as per hour or the other Robert Storey claims ?

    (3a.) Three invoices were sent to Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd on the 31st of January 2007 by Wilkins Kennedy.

    (3b.) These invoices were for a number of services, including reviews of contractor books, production of draft accounts for submission to government etc.

    (3c.) The invoices also included for costs in relation to “Partners Time in relation to work performed for Harlequin Property Thailand including site attendance, meetings and other ad hoc duties.
    Detailed discussion with solicitors and Architects re company development and shareholder issue.”

    (3d.) The invoices further detail fees for meeting Harlequin Property’s (SVG) Ltd. Swiss Bankers,
    detailed discussions with regards to the Italian sale,
    and attendances at the offices of PKF to discuss reports produced on the SVG operation.

    (PKF being the auditors for Harlequin Property SVG.)

    Why were invoices sent and then paid for by Harlequin Property (SVG) for work Wilkins Kennedy were carrying out for Harlequin Property Thailand, again an unrelated company?

    Why was it never disclosed that Harlequin Property (SVG) held bank accounts in Switzerland ?
    Was investor money held in these accounts?
    What was the purpose of these accounts ?
    Were these accounts identified during the Davies case?
    Was this why a contempt hearing was being taken against Ames and his wife?

    Why was investors money for Caribbean properties (Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd) being used to pay for services provided to Harlequin Property Thailand ?

    How many more invoices for goods & services provided to Harlequin Property Thailand by others, were sent to and paid for by Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd.?

    Was the money sent to Harlequin Property SVG, what is afterall investor money, sent from HMSSE for the development of the Buccament Bay Resort or was it used for unconnected businesses?

    What was Ames selling in Italy, the Italian Sale, or was he buying something in Italy.?

    (4a). As per the invoices from the 30th April 2008 to May 2010 Wilkins Kennedy along with providing services in connection with accountancy and ongoing budgets and cash-flow budgets for all of the Harlequin developments.

    Wilkins Kennedy were also invoicing for for the time spent in attending meetings and discussions with third party investors and business partners.

    (4b.) In April 2010 Wilkins Kennedy reviewed a detailed loan agreement with a David Rastall.

    (4c.) Wilkins Kennedys last invoice for the preparation of accounts for ” The Company” was in the April 2009 invoice. “The Company” being Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd. this was for the accounting period to 30th April 2008.

    (4d.) Wilkins Kennedy also invoiced for work in relation to the preparation of red book valuations, this is dealt with in more detail in the defence.

    What was the video that Dave Ames starred in at the Grove in August 2009 all about ?

    For 7 years now as per the invoices, Dave Ames has been seeking finance, from third party investors and business partners, yet to date has failed to secure finance, why is this?
    What happened the detailed Loan Agreement with David Rastall ?
    Who is David Rastall ?
    How can accounts be prepared for a company that does not exist ?

    The red book valuations referred to in the invoices and the defence by Wilkins Kennedy are rather startling, when analysed and cross referenced against the sales prices of the units,

    They demonstrate that Ames was not selling properties at 50% below market value but in some cases at rates which exceeded those in the red book valuations.

    The only invoices issued and paid for were to two entities,

    (1) a company registered in SVG, Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd.
    and
    (2). invoices to a company that does not exist, Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd.

    Wilkins Kennedy acknowledge that they prepared accounts for this company (the only company they acknowledge preparing accounts for) for the accounting period to 30th April 2008.

    Even if Wilkins Kennedy drafted accounts for Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd, which is not stated in the invoices, and if these accounts were those referred to in the invoice, then yes it could be said that Wilkins Kennedy provided an accounting service to one of dozens of companies Ames and his family owns, for part of one financial reporting year. that year being to year end April 2008.

    However the statement “In connection with accountancy and ongoing budgets and cashflow budgets for all of the Harlequin developments” on every invoice, does not necessarily, and as a matter of law, indicate that Wilkins Kennedy were the accountants,

    Given the detail contained in the invoices, and the specific references to the preparation of accounts for one company for one financial year.
    It seems that Wilkins Kennedy was acting in a consultancy role or as advisors for Ames, given the diverse nature of the work invoiced.

    That in itself does not necessarily make them accountants for all of the Ames family companies. Again I remind you that no company or group called Harlequin exists.

    The Ames family have dozens of companies, at least six resort companies, yet Wilkins Kennedy acknowledge in their invoices, that they produced accounts for a company that does not exist in legal terms for one financial year or part there of.

    I know that this does not form part of the question asked of me, but something else I thought was worth bringing to the attention of investors, in the disengagement letter of Wilkins Kennedy dated the 7th of June 2010,
    (this was incorrectly labeled by Ames’ legal team in their statement of claim as the disengagement letter of Harlequin).

    This from the disengagement letter sent to Harlequin Management Services South East Ltd ( Now in liquidation)

    (a.) “We will no longer liaise with HM Revenue and Customs in relation to their ongoing company PAYE enquiry and self assessment enquiry in relation to Mr. David Ames.”
    I do wonder if the accounts in Switzerland will pique the interest of HMRC.?

    Of even more interest see below.

    (b). ” Please also note that upon the director’s instructions we have not sought formal FSA clearance in relation to the use of SIPPs for purchasing hotel rooms sold by the company.”

    This letter was sent to The Board of Directors of Harlequin Management Services South East, by Wilkins Kennedy on the 7th of June 2010.

    Therefore either Dan or Carol Ames as directors of that firm instructed Wilkins Kennedy NOT to seek formal clearance in relation to the use of SIPPs for purchasing hotel rooms sold by the company. Yet they were selling SIPPs for nearly two years by this stage.

    In a similar letter sent to Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd on the 2nd of June 2010, Wilkins Kennedy state ” At this time we would like to state that we have NOT prepared detailed budgets and cash flows for the company as a whole or on any one site with the exception of that at Buccament Bay”

    They also state in the paragraph “Respective Responsibilities” ” You will be solely responsible for identifying another ADVISOR to take on these ……………………

    “Our responsibilities, on resignation as ‘ADVISORS’ include those set out in our institutes Code of Ethics (Section 210). …………………..

  5. Mental Health Care

    Just in case someone missed this
    Legal Eagle on January 19, 2015 at 11:08 pm
    For the Attn. of All those interested parties.

    I would like to thank Robert Storey for raising the very interesting issue about the role played by Wilkins Kennedy, if it were not for Robert we might all remain ignorant of certain facts as are contained in the statement of claim produced by David Edward Ames and his excellent legal Team, Hefin Rees QC and the team at ELS Legal LLP headed up by Richard Spector.

    However I could give you the short legal answer, that being no, this does not suggest that Wilkins Kennedy were accountants for Harlequin.

    However it appears that you may not understand the nature of “Harlequin” or more importantly the companies Dave and Carol Ames control.

    So it is important to explain this.

    (1). There is no such legal entity as Harlequin, no company owned by any of the Ames family is called Harlequin.

    It does not exist, nor has it ever.

    (2). Each and every company owned in part or outright by any member of the Ames family or any combination of Ames family members are all seperate and distinct either trading or dormant companies.

    Between them the Ames family own or control dozens of companies, some trading ( insolvently or otherwise) some dormant.

    I have not used the term ‘legally’ trading given the insolvent nature of the companies as per the report of James Albert Baker.

    There is no connection between any of the companies. They are all wholly seperate entities.

    ‘Harlequin’ is often referred to as a Group by Ames and others, but there is no such entity as the ‘Harlequin’ group as a matter of law.

    This was further demonstrated in the case RL took against two of the Ames’ companies in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court, on the 29th of July 2014. in the matter of Buccament Bay Resort Ltd. and Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd and the Insolvency Act 1986.

    In this case both Dave Ames and his in house solicitor demonstrated to the court that the companies were distinct and seperate,
    indeed they clearly demonstrated to the court that HMSSE was merely an intermediary which recieved funds and passed them onto the companies in the Caribbean.
    This is very important in the context of your post and the relationship between Wilkins Kennedy and companies owned or under the control of the Ames family.

    The Administrators of HMSSE (now in liquidation) apparently did not feel that taking a case against Wilkins Kennedy would be prudent,
    this is interesting given the assertions by Dave Ames that the outcome of the case being taken by his other companies against Wilkins Kennedy is a foregone conclusion.

    Wilkins Kennedy were the Auditors for HMSSE, however there are no invoices from Wilkins Kennedy to HMSSE produced in the claim.

    Now you refer to the description of the invoice as written in the Harlequin submission and indeed you have provided the quote from the Harlequin submission,

    “In connection with accountancy and ongoing budgets and cashflow budgets for all of the Harlequin developments”

    This raises a number of questions?

    (1). If as you correctly point out Harlequin are stating that this invoice is for all of the Harlequin developments, why is it that only one of the Resort Development Companies is suing Wilkins Kennedy, that being Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd. ?

    There were 6 RDC’s and given Mr. Ames and Mr. Regans assertions in the UK High Court that all the companies are seperate entities why is only one RDC company suing Wilkins Kennedy?

    Wilkins Kennedy are also being sued by Harlequin Hotels & Resorts the Cayman Island company, but Wilkins Kennedy are seeking to strike that company off as a claimant.
    Wilkins Kennedy sent no invoices to this company as per the statement of claim, nor is this company mentioned by Wilkins Kennedy in any of the invoices submitted to either Harlequin Property SVG Ltd or Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd.

    (2). You quote from a fee note / invoice from Wilkins Kennedy to a company called Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd.

    (2a.) Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd. does not exist. It is not a company.

    (2b.) Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd. is not a plaintiff in the case.

    (2c.) There are 9 Invoices from Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd. from the 29th June 2007 to April the 30th 2009.

    Given that all the companies owned by Ames are distinctly separate legal entities and given that Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd,
    aside from the fact that it does not exist,
    is not a plaintiff company,
    nor is it an RDC (Resort Development Company),
    what evidentiary value do these exhibits have, and I suspect that Kennedy’s the insurers solicitors will seek to have this evidence struck out on the basis that it is irrelevant to the proceedings as have been taken by the plaintiff companies.

    The question I suppose that has to be asked next is,
    why were invoices being sent to a company that did or does not exist? And why were these invoices paid ? These invoices were being generated for close to two years, so I doubt that this can be put down to a typo.
    Indeed what company paid these invoices?
    Did Ames ask Wilkins Kennedy to send invoices to a company that does not exist ? If so why ?

    Robert you have raised some really interesting points here in your tenacity to obtain comprehensive responses.

    Is this why Wilkins Kennedy reported Ames and his companies to the SFO as per hour or the other Robert Storey claims ?

    (3a.) Three invoices were sent to Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd on the 31st of January 2007 by Wilkins Kennedy.

    (3b.) These invoices were for a number of services, including reviews of contractor books, production of draft accounts for submission to government etc.

    (3c.) The invoices also included for costs in relation to “Partners Time in relation to work performed for Harlequin Property Thailand including site attendance, meetings and other ad hoc duties.
    Detailed discussion with solicitors and Architects re company development and shareholder issue.”

    (3d.) The invoices further detail fees for meeting Harlequin Property’s (SVG) Ltd. Swiss Bankers,
    detailed discussions with regards to the Italian sale,
    and attendances at the offices of PKF to discuss reports produced on the SVG operation.

    (PKF being the auditors for Harlequin Property SVG.)

    Why were invoices sent and then paid for by Harlequin Property (SVG) for work Wilkins Kennedy were carrying out for Harlequin Property Thailand, again an unrelated company?

    Why was it never disclosed that Harlequin Property (SVG) held bank accounts in Switzerland ?
    Was investor money held in these accounts?
    What was the purpose of these accounts ?
    Were these accounts identified during the Davies case?
    Was this why a contempt hearing was being taken against Ames and his wife?

    Why was investors money for Caribbean properties (Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd) being used to pay for services provided to Harlequin Property Thailand ?

    How many more invoices for goods & services provided to Harlequin Property Thailand by others, were sent to and paid for by Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd.?

    Was the money sent to Harlequin Property SVG, what is afterall investor money, sent from HMSSE for the development of the Buccament Bay Resort or was it used for unconnected businesses?

    What was Ames selling in Italy, the Italian Sale, or was he buying something in Italy.?

    (4a). As per the invoices from the 30th April 2008 to May 2010 Wilkins Kennedy along with providing services in connection with accountancy and ongoing budgets and cash-flow budgets for all of the Harlequin developments.

    Wilkins Kennedy were also invoicing for for the time spent in attending meetings and discussions with third party investors and business partners.

    (4b.) In April 2010 Wilkins Kennedy reviewed a detailed loan agreement with a David Rastall.

    (4c.) Wilkins Kennedys last invoice for the preparation of accounts for ” The Company” was in the April 2009 invoice. “The Company” being Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd. this was for the accounting period to 30th April 2008.

    (4d.) Wilkins Kennedy also invoiced for work in relation to the preparation of red book valuations, this is dealt with in more detail in the defence.

    What was the video that Dave Ames starred in at the Grove in August 2009 all about ?

    For 7 years now as per the invoices, Dave Ames has been seeking finance, from third party investors and business partners, yet to date has failed to secure finance, why is this?
    What happened the detailed Loan Agreement with David Rastall ?
    Who is David Rastall ?
    How can accounts be prepared for a company that does not exist ?

    The red book valuations referred to in the invoices and the defence by Wilkins Kennedy are rather startling, when analysed and cross referenced against the sales prices of the units,

    They demonstrate that Ames was not selling properties at 50% below market value but in some cases at rates which exceeded those in the red book valuations.

    The only invoices issued and paid for were to two entities,

    (1) a company registered in SVG, Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd.
    and
    (2). invoices to a company that does not exist, Harlequin Management Services (SVG) Ltd.

    Wilkins Kennedy acknowledge that they prepared accounts for this company (the only company they acknowledge preparing accounts for) for the accounting period to 30th April 2008.

    Even if Wilkins Kennedy drafted accounts for Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd, which is not stated in the invoices, and if these accounts were those referred to in the invoice, then yes it could be said that Wilkins Kennedy provided an accounting service to one of dozens of companies Ames and his family owns, for part of one financial reporting year. that year being to year end April 2008.

    However the statement “In connection with accountancy and ongoing budgets and cashflow budgets for all of the Harlequin developments” on every invoice, does not necessarily, and as a matter of law, indicate that Wilkins Kennedy were the accountants,

    Given the detail contained in the invoices, and the specific references to the preparation of accounts for one company for one financial year.
    It seems that Wilkins Kennedy was acting in a consultancy role or as advisors for Ames, given the diverse nature of the work invoiced.

    That in itself does not necessarily make them accountants for all of the Ames family companies. Again I remind you that no company or group called Harlequin exists.

    The Ames family have dozens of companies, at least six resort companies, yet Wilkins Kennedy acknowledge in their invoices, that they produced accounts for a company that does not exist in legal terms for one financial year or part there of.

    I know that this does not form part of the question asked of me, but something else I thought was worth bringing to the attention of investors, in the disengagement letter of Wilkins Kennedy dated the 7th of June 2010,
    (this was incorrectly labeled by Ames’ legal team in their statement of claim as the disengagement letter of Harlequin).

    This from the disengagement letter sent to Harlequin Management Services South East Ltd ( Now in liquidation)

    (a.) “We will no longer liaise with HM Revenue and Customs in relation to their ongoing company PAYE enquiry and self assessment enquiry in relation to Mr. David Ames.”
    I do wonder if the accounts in Switzerland will pique the interest of HMRC.?

    Of even more interest see below.

    (b). ” Please also note that upon the director’s instructions we have not sought formal FSA clearance in relation to the use of SIPPs for purchasing hotel rooms sold by the company.”

    This letter was sent to The Board of Directors of Harlequin Management Services South East, by Wilkins Kennedy on the 7th of June 2010.

    Therefore either Dan or Carol Ames as directors of that firm instructed Wilkins Kennedy NOT to seek formal clearance in relation to the use of SIPPs for purchasing hotel rooms sold by the company. Yet they were selling SIPPs for nearly two years by this stage.

    In a similar letter sent to Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd on the 2nd of June 2010, Wilkins Kennedy state ” At this time we would like to state that we have NOT prepared detailed budgets and cash flows for the company as a whole or on any one site with the exception of that at Buccament Bay”

    They also state in the paragraph “Respective Responsibilities” ” You will be solely responsible for identifying another ADVISOR to take on these ……………………

    “Our responsibilities, on resignation as ‘ADVISORS’ include those set out in our institutes Code of Ethics (Section 210). …………………..

  6. slipped disk

    WASN’T THIS THE HEADING??
    “Now after losing everything, Harlequin victims are set to lose even more as Guardian SIPP is suing the investors for non-payment of the fees related to their self-invested personal pension” ? Guardian are not the big company many think they are. In fact some may say they are just a few chancers hijacking a big name. No substance!!? Particularly odious management. Pick pockets?? You look and say.There may also be a connection between the CE of Guardian and K Manderfield- so called sales director of Harlequin!!? I do hope the SFO are investigating that connection. I don’t know and make no allegations. But you may want to look into all this.

  7. John Hanson 1781-1782- I SERVE 1788- 1792 BARBADOES.

    BFP need to understand , there is not bigger PONZI than Barbados , and ran by the BLP and now by the DLP. Its seem POZNI have a life span of 30 years or so before WE ALL FALL DOWN, Barbados has its 2 legs shot out from under them , CLICO and Sagicorr ,,, Better now look at the Banks like Barclay’s and First Caribbean ,

    All better remove your Money from First Caribbean NOW ,,there is part of your pain in the Caribbean

  8. Anonymous

    More trouble

  9. Come on roll up, a second change to lose more money

    Just another nail in the coffin, because BB can’t complete as per the other posts this is just a way of making the next payday run for the bunker.

  10. Same old pigs at the trough!!

    Have a look at the link

    http://www.guardianpc.co.uk/

    They want investors to join the Trust….

  11. Off with their heads.

    A couple of claims would kill them.

    http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05532587

  12. whatsthefuss.

    You were all just greedy bastards, high risk = high risk. Never invest what you cant afford to loose.

    If you borrowed your just as thick as Erica fanny hair.

  13. slipped disk

    Ahh the nasty people hiding in back rooms hating the world are here. The little worker hits backs as he picks his spots.

  14. Anon

    FSCS – Occupation Pension Scheme – Redress Calc

    All,

    FSCS Redress

    We are now into the next phase. The FSCS currently have a position on Harlequin which will result in investors receiving redress for the pension transfer loss, but not for the investment loss.

    The current approach leaves SIPP investors significantly out of pocket which is unacceptable. No one is exempt from the problem.

    For investors who transferred personal pensions, this on average will amount to a couple of thousand pounds redress. For investors who transferred occupational pension schemes, this will amount to significantly more. In this case, the maximum FSCS pay out of £50,000.00.

    None of our clients, nor any client of any other firm or even investors undertaking their own FSCS applications will find this satisfactory. The real loss sits with the Harlequin investment.

    The approach of the FSCS is at odds with that of FOS. FOS have effectively written down the Harlequin investment to nil value on their redress calculations.

    This disparity needs to be dealt with as all investors (whether clients of RL or not) will face the same problem.

    How do we solve the problem ?

    Firstly, we are going to approach the FSCS for our clients and put the legal argument that the 100% carrying value is at odds with the approach of FOS and the Emptage Court of Appeal judgment.
    Secondly, we will write to all the other claimant firms (Magenta / Holkham et al) and ask them to agree a joint consistent approach with us to the FSCS.
    Thirdly, we will be writing to all SIPP investors in early February 2015 seeking their authority for us to put their name on an “Interested Party” list.
    Who will help us ?

    We have already liased with Queens Counsel in order that they can prepare the submissions.

    We intend to lodge the “Interested Party” list with FSCS alongside our submissions.

    Timescale

    We will write to SIPP investors in early February 2015.

    We will write to FSCS in March 2015 with our submissions and Interested Party list.

    Upon receipt of the FSCS response, we will then return to our clients with our advice. Depending on the response, we will proceed accordingly.

    Queries

    Please address any queries to our team on 01384 889900.

    Regulatory Legal Solicitors