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.