Liam's 15th May 2012 e-mail to investors

You will all have seen the latest drivel to come from Liam Collins as to why he has now given up on an IVA proposal ... ANS IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ANTI_IVA GROUP. If you read this blog posting in conjunction with the "Britain's Got Talent" blog posting, I am sure that even the most naive C&B investor will be able to put 2 & 2 together, and see the blatant lies that are bing told to investors.

It is also worth mentioning that at the time McCambridge Duffy LLP gave up on C&B, they had yet to see up-to-date cash-flows and accounts, this from Michael Peoples:

"We did not receive up to date cashflows or accounts but we were advised that the rentals were generating sufficient profits to fund the proposals we were discussing. We would have wanted more detail before finalising any documents such as accounts, projections, profit and loss accounts but again it became irrelevant as we never progressed with the IVA."

The Editor

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ewart tempest
Date: Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: May 15th e-mail from Liam Collins to all investors
To: collinsandbone@hotmail.co.uk
Cc:


Liam,

I don't expect you to forward the texts below to all investors, which is no matter as it will go up on the blog in due course in any case. Let's just set a few things straight:

• The trustee that we, the anti-IVA group, would like to see appointed, is independent - he has no associations whatsoever with the David Bone Jnr or yourself. He does not at this point in time have access to any of the partnership's financial data, so no statement can be made about what the outcome of the trustee's activities will be.

• The anti-IVA group has NEVER blocked the formulation of an IVA proposal, and we have NEVER interfered in the activities of McCambridge Duffy LLP in trying to get an IVA proposal together - if you have evidence to the contrary, make it available to investors! In fact, the anti-IVA group has nothing to loose in seeing an IVA proposal put forward. After all, the voting block that the anti-IVA group represents is only relevant when an IVA proposal is on the table.

• I asked Michael Peoples this morning to specifically comment on your following statement:

"Michael Peoples who was going to carry out the IVA told David and I personally that the major reason why they dropped the case was because of the hostility of the opposition."

and this is what he came back with:

From: Michael Peoples <mpeoples@mccambridgeduffy.com>
Date: Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Subject: Re:
To: ewart tempest

Hi Ewart,

To be fair I cannot add anything to what I have already said. I did receive correspondence from the Georges which I replied to and I was advised that there was a number of people hostile to the Collins/Bone partnership but I personally have received nothing untoward. I have received hostility in the past as it is not unusual for creditors to effectively 'shoot the messenger' but this is highly rare and normally just someone letting off steam.

When speaking of hostile creditors in an IVA scenario we are referring to those who have indicated rejection of the arrangement and not people threatening to come round and break my legs! Had 'hostile' creditors exceeded 25% of the overall creditor amount any IVA would have been rejected but we never actually did the sums. However, the judge was given indications that there was sufficient supporters to outvote the rejections and granted the initial adjournment on that basis.

In summation, had I received confirmation from MX that they would not appoint LPA receivers I would have drafted the IVA documents. Often even 'hostile' creditors accept proposals when they see the alternative is usually zero and I would have put the proposals to a vote. The proposals could have been modified or changed at any meeting while safeguards could have been put in place protecting all concerned but since MX have only ever said they would 'consider' any proposal and we have been given no assurances that their policies would be changed we could not proceed.

Kind Regards,

Michael.

Manager - Self Employed Department
McCambridge Duffy Telephone:         028 7137 7321 Fax:                  028 7130 8025 E-mail:              mpeoples@mccambridgeduffy.com Web:                 http://www.mccambridgeduffy.com/    

----- Original Message -----

From: ewart tempest

To: Michael Peoples

Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 1:40 PM

Subject: Fwd:

Hi Michael,

Sorry to bother you again, I thought we were done .... but then this e-mail just in from Liam Collins, specifically the texts below that I have bolded in red. Liam Collins claims that you personally told the partners that the major reason your firm dropped the case was due to hostility from the opposition.

• Who was hostility received from? The Georges? Alastair MacLean? Tim Clift? The press? Who?
• What was the nature of this hostility? Are there any e-mails I should be aware of?

Ewart

• It is quite clear from the information that we have received from McCambridge Duffy LLP that the impediment to any IVA proposal is Mortgage Express. It may seem convenient to you to blame the anti-IVA group for your own selfish reasons, but the truth is there for all investors to see.

• The members of the anti-IVA group are not closed to the idea of an IVA proposal, so long as the percentage returns on the original investment are substantial and GUARANTEED. So far you have failed to make available any financial data, and merely tried to paint the anti-IVA group as a small splinter-group of disgruntled investors. How you think doing this helps you get an IVA proposal passed is a puzzle. There is only one way to engage the anti-IVA group, and that is through the release of financial data to all investors. You claimed in your e-mail to investors on May 9th that:

"We have it in writing that Mortgage Express would have considered an IVA (if it made commercial sense), and we had a proposal which most certainly did."

So what is the proposal, and where is the financial data to back it up? Whether you have managed to wrap it up in an IVA proposal at this stage is irrelevant.

Ewart

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Liam Collins <collinsandbone@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Investors,

Thank you for those who have written to us to offer your support it is much appreciated. Just to let you all know where we stand at present. I am officially bankrupt and I am currently having to fill in a great deal of information about everything which has happened over the last 5 years. I am working with an advisor who is helping me to do this and after this we have to hand this to the official receiver.  The official receiver will decide if there is merit in handing the estate to a trustee for the sale of all assets. As you know there is no equity in the overall portfolio so it is unlikely that a trustee would be appointed after all there has to be something in it for the trustee. So it is likely the estate will stay with the official receivers and they will decide the best course of action for the estate.  They will also leave no stone unturned with what has happened and why it has happened. 

I know the Georges and Ewart Tempest have won their battle to bankrupt me and Davey at the end of this month and that their mission does not end here. For their information we are more than happy to work with all authorities and to answer all questions asked.  

The Georges are already trying to appoint their own "neutral" trustee. If enough of you support this then perhaps they will succeed. I can only hope that if they achieve this they keep the assets for all investors and not just for themselves. I have my own opinions of what will happen in that situation. 

To clear a few points up so that you are all clear. Michael Peoples who was going to carry out the IVA told David and I personally that the major reason why they dropped the case was because of the hostility of the opposition. Michael wrote a letter recently stating that without confirmation from MX that they would not put all the properties into LPA receivership there would be little commercial incentive to embark on the paperwork to put one together. The reality is that MX had confirmed in writing to us that they would consider an IVA but only after seeing the proposal. So as you can see we had a catch 22. Michael would not do the IVA written offer to you all due to hostility and MX would not say for sure  if they would  allow the properties to go into an IVA without seeing the written offer. 

We can still look for a new IVA practitioner who will take the case on now that the press have ran their stories and it is unlikely they will cover any more as it has been done now. However any IVA practitioner taking on the case now to over rule my bankruptcy will simply be bombarded by hostility from the George's and Ewart making it a total waste of time. 

For that reason we will not be wasting anyone's time any more with this. The George's and Ewart who now have about 40 Investors supporting them will never allow us to enter into one.  If they would we would certainly spend as long as it takes to do so. 

For most of you but not all of you I sold you this investment. David and myself take some of the blame for why the buy to let model which worked 30 times between 2002 and 2008 would not work from 2008 to 2012. We also take some of the blame for why the buy to sell model which worked 75 times between 2008 and 2011 but would not work between 2011 and 2012. There are many factors why this has not worked. None of our investors can be blamed for being greedy or for investing. It had worked many times for us and other investors and none of us had any reason to believe it would not work going forward. Many things have changed which we could not have predicted. I feel we have acted with integrity and honesty in dealing with the situation and I hope people will understand we have done everything we can to prevent this. 

Had we thought for any reason along the way that what we were doing would not work we would have looked to protect our assets and there are many ways we could have done this. Instead we are now losing all of our assets and will be left with nothing at all. I hope those who invested are not in the same position. 

We are deeply sorry for what has happened and we will always continue to become successful in something so that we can one day come back to repay something if not all back to you. Other people have done this before and there is no shortage of will at this side.  I can only guess that whatever we try to do in the near future may well be ruined by the Georges regardless of what we try.

My advice at this stage for what it is worth is to let the official receiver decide what is best and to not support the Georges in trying to appoint their own trustee. 

We will keep in touch with you over the coming weeks/ months as you never know the George's might change their mind and support the idea of keeping the houses for all of you and focus on that rather than focussing on who is to blame. 

Kind Regards

Liam Collins