Help Needed Re A Potential Fraud

[Londonwino]

I am new to this forum and would please ask for forgiveness if I’ve posted this in the wrong place.

I genuinely need advice.

An online company for whom we made a quarter of a million dollars for in closing their leads - for diverted funds abroad and has avoided paying us our full commission.

I sued the company. It took me 2 years and six figures - and last week, finally a high court judge found in my favour for the full amount.

The company I sued is an online business, claiming no assets - but has clearly setup an LLC and is attempting to put her LTD company into liquidation. She appointed a very famous insolvency firm who seem hell bent on ignoring the judgement and are blindly accepting her creditors without investigating.

She has put herself personally as a creditor for 130k and my judgement is in excess of 200k. Upon hearing this she added another creditor, her LLC for 350k.

The creditors meeting is on Monday and they seem hell bent on earning their fees - and pushing this through before investigating.

Their standard line is ‘once we are the insolvency practitioners, we will check everything’.

This particular lady who I sued is very famous on Instagram but also a huge liar. Even the judge called her one. She seems to continue to lie and lie to get out of this situation.

I had hoped to be the largest creditor so I could pick who the IP will be. And I’ve found one who will investigate this fully and fairly.

However I feel they’ve colluded to help her make her number bigger.

What can I say or do to force the IPs to reject her latest creditor. I have threatened to go to the insolvency services for various breaches they’ve committed so far. But what can I really do to scare the IP into being fair and disallowing her fake numbers.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

I am new to this forum and would please ask for forgiveness if I’ve posted this in the wrong place.

I genuinely need advice.

An online company for whom we made a quarter of a million dollars for in closing their leads - for diverted funds abroad and has avoided paying us our full commission.

I sued the company. It took me 2 years and six figures - and last week, finally a high court judge found in my favour for the full amount.

The company I sued is an online business, claiming no assets - but has clearly setup an LLC and is attempting to put her LTD company into liquidation. She appointed a very famous insolvency firm who seem hell bent on ignoring the judgement and are blindly accepting her creditors without investigating.

She has put herself personally as a creditor for 130k and my judgement is in excess of 200k. Upon hearing this she added another creditor, her LLC for 350k.

The creditors meeting is on Monday and they seem hell bent on earning their fees - and pushing this through before investigating.

Their standard line is ‘once we are the insolvency practitioners, we will check everything’.

This particular lady who I sued is very famous on Instagram but also a huge liar. Even the judge called her one. She seems to continue to lie and lie to get out of this situation.

I had hoped to be the largest creditor so I could pick who the IP will be. And I’ve found one who will investigate this fully and fairly.

However I feel they’ve colluded to help her make her number bigger.

What can I say or do to force the IPs to reject her latest creditor. I have threatened to go to the insolvency services for various breaches they’ve committed so far. But what can I really do to scare the IP into being fair and disallowing her fake numbers.

You need to stand back and fully analyse your position in a cold manner, you are probably right in your assertions but think of the costs involved against the gains, legal action can soon eat-up vasts amounts of money

 

[Londonwino]

You need to stand back and fully analyse your position in a cold manner, you are probably right in your assertions but think of the costs involved against the gains, legal action can soon eat-up vasts amounts of money

Yes. Thank you. Though a bit late for that as I’ve spent 2 years litigating. And won. Where I need advice is on the IP company angle

 

[ChrisCallaghan]

And won. Where I need advice is on the IP company angle

As you state, you could vote for an IP of your choosing. Assuming my firm is not already involved, I'd be happy to have a look at the Statement of Affairs if you'd like to email it over to me.

The bigger question is what you hope having a different IP will achieve. Legally speaking IPs all have the same roles and responsibilities. It would be highly unusual for any IP to risk their licence to treat one client favourably. They're response of ‘once we are the insolvency practitioners, we will check everything’ is perfectly correct - until appointed they have no powers to investigate anything.

 

[Londonwino]

As you state, you could vote for an IP of your choosing. Assuming my firm is not already involved, I'd be happy to have a look at the Statement of Affairs if you'd like to email it over to me.

The bigger question is what you hope having a different IP will achieve. Legally speaking IPs all have the same roles and responsibilities. It would be highly unusual for any IP to risk their licence to treat one client favourably. They're response of ‘once we are the insolvency practitioners, we will check everything’ is perfectly correct - until appointed they have no powers to investigate anything.

Thank you sir. I will email across her statement. They have acted in bad faith so far - and she paid them - I’m struggling to believe they are impartial

 

[japancool]

a very famous insolvency firm

I didn't know there was such a thing!

 

[ChrisCallaghan]

I didn't know there was such a thing!

Maybe OP meant infamous.

 

[Gyumri]

I’ve spent 2 years litigating. And won.

You mean the solicitors and barristers have won. You will also find that recovering any of your costs is even harder than "winning" the case.

 

[Elliot Green]

This type of suggestion *may* cover some the sort of issues raised in Fielding v Seery [2004] BCC 315 but of course it is one thing to speculate about concerns and quite another to prove them.

Fielding v Seery was instructive for saying:

"(4) A liquidator should not be a person nor be the choice of a person who has a duty or purpose which conflicts with the duties of the liquidator. There are many illustrations of this principle. I was referred in particular to Re City & County Investment Co (1877) 25 WR 342, Re Charterland Goldfields (1909) 26 TLR 132, and Re Corbenstoke (No. 2) (1989) 5 BCC 767.

(5) More specifically the liquidator should not be the nominee of a person: (a) against whom the company has hostile or conflicting claims as in Re City & County Investment Co, (and see also Deloitte & Touche AG v Johnson [1999] BCC 992; [1999] 1 WLR 1605); or (b) whose conduct in relation to the affairs of the company is under investigation as in Re Charterland Goldfields (and Re Mansel, ex parte Sayer).

(6) By contrast it is not an objection to a liquidator that he is allied to or the choice of a person who is concerned to pursue the claims of the company through the liquidator."

 

[Londonwino]

This type of suggestion *may* cover some the sort of issues raised in Fielding v Seery [2004] BCC 315 but of course it is one thing to speculate about concerns and quite another to prove them.

Fielding v Seery was instructive for saying:

"(4) A liquidator should not be a person nor be the choice of a person who has a duty or purpose which conflicts with the duties of the liquidator. There are many illustrations of this principle. I was referred in particular to Re City & County Investment Co (1877) 25 WR 342, Re Charterland Goldfields (1909) 26 TLR 132, and Re Corbenstoke (No. 2) (1989) 5 BCC 767.

(5) More specifically the liquidator should not be the nominee of a person: (a) against whom the company has hostile or conflicting claims as in Re City & County Investment Co, (and see also Deloitte & Touche AG v Johnson [1999] BCC 992; [1999] 1 WLR 1605); or (b) whose conduct in relation to the affairs of the company is under investigation as in Re Charterland Goldfields (and Re Mansel, ex parte Sayer).

(6) By contrast it is not an objection to a liquidator that he is allied to or the choice of a person who is concerned to pursue the claims of the company through the liquidator."

This helps a lot. Thank you

 

[Elliot Green]

As you state, you could vote for an IP of your choosing. Assuming my firm is not already involved, I'd be happy to have a look at the Statement of Affairs if you'd like to email it over to me.

The bigger question is what you hope having a different IP will achieve. Legally speaking IPs all have the same roles and responsibilities. It would be highly unusual for any IP to risk their licence to treat one client favourably. They're response of ‘once we are the insolvency practitioners, we will check everything’ is perfectly correct - until appointed they have no powers to investigate anything.

Hi Chris - the same role and obligations do not necessarily lead to the same execution. There is a good deal of discretion afforded to the IP in terms of how he or she conducts the role. The Perversity Test ie. the test for a court to interfere or look to control an IP extends to a threshold of conduct that no reasonable insolvency practitioner would have adopted. There is therefore a generous ambit of discretion afforded to IPs.

To take one example, some IPs will fund legal proceedings themselves when looking to swell the assets by bringing civil recovery claims, some will instead opt to sell claims to a litigation funder, some will take out ATE and be able to instruct solicitors on a CFA whereas others will not etc etc. However, any of these routes deployed could be entirely proper but the result for creditors can vary materially.

Creditors however might wish to note that generally an IP is not required to put themselves at risk of adverse costs resulting from bringing such litigation and the other point for creditors to be aware of is this:

“A trustee in bankruptcy is not vested with the powers and privileges of his office so as to enable himself to accept engagement as a hired gun. His duty is to exercise his powers and privileges for the benefit of the creditors for whom he is appointed a trustee.”

Re NG (A Bankrupt) [1998] 2 FLR 386 Mr Justice Lightman