New OR appointed - submit criminal allegations now!

Following on from the blog article "criminal allegations for Official Receiver investigation" ...

A new Official Receiver has now been appointed in Liverpool, Martin Faulkner, who will handle the bankruptcies of both Liam Collins & David Bone Jnr. David Bone's interview with the Official Receiver is set for the 26th June in Liverpool - the date for Liam Collin's interview has not yet been set. It would be very beneficial for the Official Receiver to have as much information from investors as possible regarding alleged criminal activities and supporting evidence BEFORE these interviews take place. As such, you are now formally encouraged to submit this information to Martin Faulkner (see below for complete contact details).
Martin Faulkner has requested that all e-mails from creditors specify in the subject title "Collins & Bone Partnership", and contain the following information content:

Full name

Postal Address

Amount of debt (PN's are not necessary at this point)

A statement of any alleged criminal charges

Links to blogs, etc.

Attach any supporting documents to back up claims

His e-mail address is martin.faulkner@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk, and his postal address is:

Martin Faulkner
Official Receiver's Office
2nd Floor
Cunard Building
Pier Head
Liverpool L3 1DS

Martin Faulkner's direct contact number is 0151-243-7859, though he is often away from his desk. If he doesn't answer, the case clerk for the David Bone case is Miss Wimpenny (Collins's case clerk not designated yet) who can be contacted on 0151-236-9131.

The Editor

criminal allegations for Official Receiver investigation

The partners wanted everyone to sign 5 year PNs ... they lost that batlle.
The partners wanted to go down the IVA route ... they lost that battle because of the position taken by Mortgage Express, and the expense of setting up an IVA.
The partners claim that they have committed no crimes, that they are just bad businessmen ... if there is any justice in this world, this is another battle that they will loose!

One of the main purposes of this blog was to hold the partners to account, and that includes making them answerable to allegations of criminal activity. Now that the partners have been made personally bankrupt, it is the job of the Official Receiver to investigate all criminal allegations.

Lee Hall is an Insolvency Examiner who works for the Official Receiver and is the current point of contact for dealing with the affairs of Liam Collins. However, it is likely that Liam Collin's file will be assigned to the Official Receivers office in Liverpool in mid-June so that the bankruptcies of both partners can be handled by the same Official Receiver. I have attached below the e-mail exchange I have had with Lee Hall, and I will update this blog entry as and when the assigned Official Receiver is known, along with full contact details.

So, this is a heads-up to investors who wish to lodge allegations of criminal activity to start putting pen to paper/fingers to the keyboard to document the criminal allegations in your particular investment case, along with all the supporting evidence, and be ready to send this into the Official Receiver.

The Editor



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lee.Hall <Lee.Hall@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:57 AM
Subject: RE: Liam James Collins: allegations of criminal activity

Dear <The Editor>,

Thank you for your email regarding the trading activities of Liam James Collins.  I should point out that I am not actually the Official Receiver, I am an Insolvency Examiner who works for the Official Receiver, but I am indeed the current contact dealing with the case of Liam Collins.

The current position with Mr Collins’ bankruptcy is that joint trustees have been appointed do deal with Mr Collin’s assets.  The trustees are David Michael Clements and Adrian Hyde of Chantrey Vellacott DFK, Prospect House, 58 Queens Road, Reading, RG1 4RP – Tel (0118)9524700.  They have been appointed to deal with Mr Collins’ assets but the investigation work will continue to be dealt with by the Official Receiver’s office.

Whilst I am the current contact, the case is about to be transferred to the Official Receiver’s Office in Liverpool so that it can be consolidated with the bankruptcy of David Bone, with whom Mr Collins traded in partnership.  It will be advantageous for both cases to be consolidated so that all of the information can be processed by one Official Receiver’s office.  The allegations to which you have referred will definitely be of interest to the Examiner who deals with the bankruptcies but as yet I cannot provide you with the exact contact details.  I have been asked to ring the Liverpool office on 11^th June to discuss the transfer of Mr Collin’s case, so I will know more after that date.  In the meantime, I will try to answer your questions;

1. There is no prescribed timeframe for the allegations to be lodged, but it would definitely be of benefit to the Examiner to have this information before interviewing Mr Collins and Mr Bone so that those areas of concern could be addressed.
2. Any correspondence on the case will be available to whoever is dealing with the case at that time.  The transfer of the file will not affect this.
3. There is no prescribed template for reporting allegations.
4. I will notify you when the case has been transferred so that you have the up to date contact details to lodge the allegations.
5. You can send correspondence by letter or email (Word, Excel, PDF, TIFF files are all acceptable) once I have updated you after the transfer of the case.

I hope that I have covered all of your points so far, but if you need anything else from me in the meantime, please call or email me.

Regards,

Lee Hall

Insolvency Examiner | The Insolvency Service | lee.hall@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk | Official Receiver's Office, 1st Floor, Pandon Bank, Newcastle, NE1 2JQ | (0191)2604625 | www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency

---

From: The Editor

Sent: 06 June
To: Lee.Hall
Subject: Liam James Collins: allegations of criminal activity

Hi Lee,

I am an investor, or should I say, dis-investor with the Collins & Bone Partnership, and editor of the blog www.collins-and-bone.blogspot.com. I understand from Sally George that you are currently the Official Receiver in the case of the personal bankruptcy of Liam James Collins, one of the partners.

A good number of investors have criminal allegations that they wish to levy against the partners, and which need to be investigated by the Official Receiver. I would like to put up an article on the aforementioned blog telling investors the process that needs to be followed to get these allegations formalised with the OR. If polling of investors for allegations of criminal activity is something that you will automatically do as part of your activities once you have the contact details of all of the investors, then of course I do not need to do this. Otherwise, can you please answer the following questions and supply any other information that might be useful to investors wrt formalising their allegations:

• in what timeframe should allegations be lodged with the OR?
• if allegations are sent to you, will these automatically to be tagged to the case file even if the OR dealing with the case subsequently changes/has changed?
• is there a particular template that needs to be followed for reporting allegations?
• to where/whom should the allegations be sent?
• what media formats are acceptable for reporting allegations?

The Editor

E-mails from Action For Debt

Investors may have received e-mails today (May 17th) from Marian Cox at Action For Debt (http://www.actionfordebt.com/) requesting personal data on the basis that they have a "limited spread sheet to work off" from Liam Collins, and that without this information the Official Receivers will not be able to contact you with their findings or be able tell you if there is a creditors meeting. Her e-mail contains an incorrect date of bankruptcy for Liam Collins, and in my case divulged other investors' e-mail addresses i.e. wholly unprofessional. Liam Collins has apparently asked Action For Debt for help in completing certain paperwork required for the Official Receivers investigations. However, the information they are requesting (mailing address) the partners should be able to readily supply, since this data is minimally on the PNs that they issued. The Editor's response to Action For Debt's request, as well as the advice to investors, is not to supply any personal data until such a time as the partners have sent an e-mail to all investors in which they state:

• Why the partners cannot supply the required data themselves. If investor data has been lost, what has happened to it, and when & why did it happen?
• The role that Action For Debt is fulfilling on their behalf.

The Editor

PS. The above blog texts were additionally e-mailed to Liam Collins, and "The Board" members Joe Sinagoga & Robert Wakefield, today (May 17th).

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

Britain's Got Talent

... but alas, in the case of Liam Collins, not for telling the truth. He cannot even tell the simple truth of why the IVA practitioner pulled out.

Both this blog and the IFS blog have always posted informative and accurate articles - it is one of the reasons why the editors have never had to modify an article due to a factual error, and we aim to keep it that way. Alas, this cannot be said for statements from the partners, or "the Board" members. Liam Collins' e-mail to investors minutes before his bankruptcy hearing this morning, and attached below in all its "glory", is testament to the disinformation and lies that he espouses to, and I feel compelled to point out all the erroneous statements for the benefit/education of all investors:

• Liam Collins: "The IVA company we had engaged, pulled out last Wednesday due to 'extreme hostility' from the George's as well as the other handful of people we have going against us. Their concern was that there had been press threats and it was too much of a risk for their company. This has not left us enough time to engage another firm (as you know, we struggled to get anyone to agree to take the case on initially)."

Editor: UNTRUE! The IVA company in question was McCambridge Duffy LLP - not many investors will have known that. With the exception of a personal "olive branch" e-mail from Liam Collins to Sally, Jasmine and myself  on March 30th which we agreed not to publish, we have received no e-mails from the partners until the one sent today i.e. we had received no e-mails wrt IVA proposal progress for many weeks. So on 26th April Sally & Jasmine sent an e-mail to Michael Peoples at McCambridge Duffy LLP to find out what the status of the IVA proposal was - their e-mail, and the response from Michael Peoples, is below. As you can see, all very polite and professional, just as it should be: 

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

From: IRN

To: mpeoples@mccambridgeduffy.com

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:03 AM

Subject: Collins & Bone Partnership

Dear Mr Peoples,

We are creditors with the above partnership and have been wondering whether there is any news about the development of an IVA for Liam Collins and David Bone, Jr.  We have heard nothing from the partners for over a month and neither has the lawyer, Tim Clift, nor have any of the investors with whom we are in touch.

We are asking you directly rather than contacting the partners because we are unable to trust a word they say or write regarding the state of their finances. 

Yours sincerely 

SALLY and JASMINE GEORGE

Dear Mr and Mrs George,

Unfortunately, I cannot answer any specifics but I can confirm that at this time we have not drafted any IVA proposal for the Collins and Bone partnership. If we do draft a proposal it will be circulated in the near future but there is no certainty that this will happen.

I will try and see if I have authority to discuss any further and will revert to you once I have spoken to the partners.

Kind Regards,

Michael.

Michael Peoples
Manager - Self Employed Department

McCambridge Duffy

Telephone:         028 7137 7321

Fax:                  028 7130 8025

E-mail:              mpeoples@mccambridgeduffy.com

With the exception of a telephone call from Tim Clift to McCambridge Duffy LLP the morning before the hearing to find out the status of the proposed IVA (the receptionist informed Tim Clift that they were no longer instructed by Collins & Bone), this is the full extent of the anti-IVA group's interactions with them.

So I sent an e-mail to Michael Peoples to have him comment on Liam's statement, and this is what he came back with:

From: Michael Peoplesmailto:Peoplesmpeoples@mccambridgeduffy.com

Date: Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 AM

Subject: Re: Why did McCambridge Duffy pull out of C&B IVA proposal?

To: ewart tempest <ewart.tempest@gmail.com>

Dear Mr Ewart,

 A number of people contacted ourselves and Mr Chris Jary who helped Liam get the first adjournment making various accusations. While this may indeed be a factor in deciding whether to proceed with the IVA, there was also an issue with Mortgage Express who were the main lender to Collins/Bone. It is their policy to appoint LPA receivers if a landlord enters an IVA and this would have caused any IVAs to collapse. We spoke to them on a number of occasions and they would not say for definite that they would not appoint LPAs.

This was a huge factor in being unable to proceed as we could not draft proposals and recommend them to creditors knowing that Mortgage Express could pull the plug immediately afterwards. They did say they would refer the case to their risk team and hopefully it would be looked favourably upon, but that answer was not enough to justify the work and expense involved in drafting IVAs.

 I hope this information is helpful but should you require anything further please give me a call.

 Kind Regards,

 Michael Peoples.

Michael Peoples     
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: mpeoples@mccambridgeduffy.com

Cc: ewart tempest

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:40 AM

Subject: Why did McCambridge Duffy pull out of C&B IVA proposal?

Dear Mr Peoples,

Liam Collins, just before going into his personal bankruptcy hearing this morning (May 9th) in Newcastle Upon Tyne posted an e-mail to investors in which he stated the following:

"The IVA company we had engaged, pulled out last Wednesday due to 'extreme hostility' from the George's as well as the other handful of people we have going against us. Their concern was that there had been press threats and it was too much of a risk for their company."

McCambridge Duffy is "The IVA company" mentioned above. Can you comment on the above statement and the nature of the "extreme hostility" your firm was at the receiving end of from the George's/others.

Ewart (a major Collins & Bone Partnership investor)

• Liam Collins: "We had overwhelming support in favour of an IVA, comfortably over the 75% needed, and for all those who supported us in this, we are desperately sorry that it has now come to this. We never ever wanted any of this to happen the way it has, and we are so, so sorry."

Editor: UNTRUE! Liam Collins is evidently not familiar with even the basics of IVAs. When voting on an IVA proposal it does not matter how many investors would vote in favour of it, but the percentage of the debt that these investors represent. If this percentage is less than 75% of the total debt of those who voted, the IVA proposal fails. We don't know the actual number of investors but even so they certainly don't have 87% of the investors on their side; at the most, they have up to 60% of the total debt. So the partners never had any chance of passing an IVA proposal unless the percentage return on investment was sizeable and guaranteed i.e. an incentive for anti-IVA members to change sides. The approach taken by the bloggers during the past 5-6 weeks has been to take a well-deserved rest after all the investigative work of the past few months, and to see what proposal if any the partners put forward ... but nothing materialised.

• Liam Collins: "One of Sally and Jasmine George's main supporters has told us 'we have a person ready to take control of the portfolio should you go bankrupt', I guess we will see if this is possible for them, and whether they are going to hold them in trust for the other investors as an IVA would, only time will tell."

Editor: UNTRUE! This mis-information has already been addressed in the blog article "OK, who squealed? Liam now knows ...". Tim Clift does however have a bankruptcy trustee whom many creditors would like to see approved by the Official Receiver, someone who is totally unconnected with any of the partners, their respective families, or friends. A person who is both an experienced IVA practitioner and bankruptcy trustee.

To Liam Collins I say, if you claim to have a proposal which makes commercial sense, put it on the table along with all the backing data. After all, if it is commercially viable you should have no problem getting an IVA proposal together. Stop blaming others for your own failures!



The Editor







From: Liam Collins <collinsandbone@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:51 AM
Subject: Bankruptcy Hearing
To:


Dear all,

As you are aware we have a hearing today at 11am at Newcastle Court. Unfortunately, I will now be made bankrupt at this hearing.

The IVA company we had engaged, pulled out last Wednesday due to 'extreme hostility' from the George's as well as the other handful of people we have going against us. Their concern was that there had been press threats and it was too much of a risk for their company. This has not left us enough time to engage another firm (as you know, we struggled to get anyone to agree to take the case on initially). 

We had overwhelming support in favour of an IVA, comfortably over the 75% needed, and for all those who supported us in this, we are desperately sorry that it has now come to this. We never ever wanted any of this to happen the way it has, and we are so, so sorry.

I will be confirmed bankrupt at 11am, Davey has a hearing on 31st May where that result is also now a formality.

We do have a 6 week window to get an IVA in place even after we have been made bankrupt (as in we have 6 weeks for an IVA to over-turn today's ruling), and we will be doing all we can to get this in place.

I'm not sure if its worth those supporting the IVA contacting the original firm who were taking it on to show how much support we have, we will be in touch regarding this.

It has all come as a bit of a shock, and we have worked up until last night to try to turn this around, but we have been unable to.

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. We also have it in writing that upon bankruptcy the properties will all be placed into LPA receivership, and, as mentioned previously, it only takes a google search of 'mortgage express LPA' to see what will result from that.

One of Sally and Jasmine George's main supporters has told us 'we have a person ready to take control of the portfolio should you go bankrupt', I guess we will see if this is possible for them, and whether they are going to hold them in trust for the other investors as an IVA would, only time will tell.

I cant express how sorry we are enough, I guess it would, at this stage appear we have lost the fight for the IVA, we will continue over the next 6 weeks to try to get another in place, but with the hostility shown towards the last company spoiling any chance we had, I'm not sure how far we will get with this action.

I'm not sure what else to say at this point other than sorry, and that we will continue to work to get an IVA in place over the coming weeks.

Thanks again for all of the support we have received, its been massively appreciated,

Liam.

The partners' endearing love for ex-CBS investors

From David Bone Jnr in a phone call dated 31st January 2012:

"Any legal obligation to pay the debt will be wiped by the bankruptcy, but the moral obligation to repay remains - this applies only to C&B debt, not CBS debt which was dead back in 2009"

From Liam Collins ala "Q&A document compiled with Liam Collins" blog article (if you have not previously read this article, you should):

"I believe if I was making the rules those who had not originally invested in C&B should be treated differently. We know that the FSA treats them differently but it is whether the receiver will. If he does then he will make C&B PN investors a priority which I agree should be the case. That said all this is largely irrelevant who is prioritised as there will be nothing realised from the sale of the assets and so there will be nothing to prioritise. It is now down to us and our moral obligations as to who we choose to prioritise if the law allows us to do so as I am sure you will understand I am happy to pay back those who have supported us and those who have made it difficult I have no intention of paying a penny back."

And there you have it, the partners' endearing love for ex-CBS investors! And it is very much this group that is providing support for an IVA proposal, in contrast to the vast majority of those who invested in the partnership in 2010/2011 who are anti-IVA ... and for good reason. The only reason the partners want an IVA is to protect their own hides, as they are fully aware of the:

• prohibitive costs associated with bringing independent legal action outside of a bankruptcy framework.
• plethora of charges and supporting evidence that will be laid at the bankruptcy trustee's feet.

Robert Wakefield would have you believe that allowing the partnership to go bankrupt would amount to "Collins and Bone being allowed to walk away Scott free". Quite the contrary - personally bankrupted (and all the ramifications that has), criminal records, likely jail terms, prohibited from ever handling investor monies again ... these are very substantial penalties and public safeguards.

The partners have said:

"We are offering 100% in the IVA because we feel it is right to do so. We are not stating that we believe we can repay 100% or that our properties are capable of repaying 100%. I think everyone understands this. The repayment plan is based on the market recovering and the rental income remaining strong."

This is no basis whatsoever for an IVA proposal. If the %age return is not substantial (the partners themselves said back on 1/12/2011 that an IVA was not advisable because at best you might only get 20p in the pound) and guaranteed, any IVA proposal is worthless, and the pursuance of crimninal charges is the best route forward ... and it is the facing of these criminal charges that the partners want to avoid at all cost. A number of ex-CBS investors who have either joined the anti-IVA group, or are sitting on the fence waiting to see what, if any, IVA proposal is put forward, have expressed their regret at not having done more as CBS investors to hold the former directors to account, realising that the same treatment that was meted out to them as CBS investors has now been done to C&B investors in an even more blatant manner. Their views are that the partners need to be stopped and held to account for what they have done.

And let's take a look at the above Q&A document statement from Liam Collins a bit more closely, and apply it to PNs taken out in 2010/2011:

• Were monies owed to C&B investors paid ahead of those owed to ex-CBS investors? Absolutely not!!!! In 2010/2011, some 300k GBP was paid out to ex-CBS investors, yet there are C&B investors who invested in 2010/2011, myself included, who have not received a penny in interest payments and/or our original investment.

Now consider the following statement from Liam Collions in a personal e-mail on 18/1/2012:

"Total invested in CBS which was carried over = 2.3m this will be reduced to around 2m as it includes interest as per the PN i not paid on time."

, and couple it with this niave statement Robert Wakefield made to a group of select investors in March 2012:

"Unless I am very much mistaken, it seems there is a small splinter group of investors who are determined to ruin everything for everyone by acting without having properly understood what bankruptcy for Collins & Bone will mean for us all."

What Robert Wakefield neglects to mention is that ex-CBS investors have already received a return of 15% of their original investment monies at the expense of C&B investors ... although I suspect that these monies were not evenly distributed. C&B investors have collectively received substantially less than this, and were just outright defrauded of their monies.

• Were monies owed to C&B investors who invested in 2010/2011 paid out in a pro-rata manner? Absolutely not!!! Some investors were paid monthly interest right upto and including October 2011, others stopped in July 2011, others in May 2011 ... and some never received anything at all.

• In the e-mail from Liam Collins to all investors dated 1st November 2011, he states:

"We have taken legal advice from a top practice and they have explained that we cannot now prioritise one investor over another due to the overdue PNs which have a negative effect on the solvency of the partnership. We must treat all investors (creditors) equally."

But the partners were in default of PNs in March 2011 (that's just from a C&B investors perspective) ... and I suspect that they were in default of ex-CBS investor issued PNs long before this as well, hence the need to have ex-CBS investors sign 5-year PNs in March 2011. So exactly what the condition "now" refers to, ala "cannot now prioritise", is a mystery.

So God only knows what criteria were used to determine who got paid when - and it certainly was not down to computer software bugs as Liam Collins would try and have you believe.

The monies that were raised through PNs in 2010/2011 were almost certainly being used from the outset in a "ponzi/"borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" manner - in the case of the investor whose story is covered in the blog article "The true Liam Collins" there is absolutely no question that this is what happened. The ex-CBS investors, who received 300k GBP post 2009, well these monies I am sure also largely came out of these newly issued PNs ... this, in total violation of what the majority of the C&B investors were told their monies were going to be used for. I am sure a full investigation of the books by the bankruptcy trustee will bear these statements out.

The Editor

240 Great Clowes Street part 2

In the May/June 2011 newsletter from "the Board", Robert Wakefield stated:

"If you would like to earn generous commissions from referring or introducing investors to the new-look Collins & Bone, where the investment is 100% protected, please contact one of us. You can also earn very good commissions from sourcing properties. You will be paid by St. Giles Asset Management Limited, not Collins and Bone."

So let me share with you some additional information that I did not have when I compiled the "240 Great Clowes Street" blog article, partly because the Land Registry does still insist on doing some things via ordinary snail-mail and cheques. The sale history behind this property is as follows:

Purchased 9/5/2011 by Dereham Investments Limited for 182k GBP, with Castle & Gatehouse Ltd slated to do the renovation work.

Purchased 7/10/2008 by Robert Charles George Wakefield & Clare Patricia Maria Wakefield for 165k GBP. The house was subsequently let by the likes of Moffat & Collins (ala Nasser Moffat & Patrick Collins) and Patrick Properties Limited (ala Patrick Collins).

Purchased 3/8/2005 by Mazepak Ltd (company # 05457525) for 230k GBP.

So here is Robert Wakefield trying to sell/offload a property he owns to be done up as part of a JV with Castle & Gatehouse Ltd. to C&B  investors whose PNs were already in default just so that he could profit/recoup some of his own investment losses! I don't view this as having investors interests at heart. I sincerely hope that:

• Commissions were not paid from PN monies raised in 2011 (see "The true Liam Collins" blog article).
  
• That no commission was paid in the case of 240 Great Clowes Street given that Castle & Gatehouse was not able to find a buyer for the property within the JV term.

The Editor