class action

Seeking Justice: The Class Action Battle Against Insurance Giants

Introduction: In recent months, a high-stakes class action has been unfolding, capturing the attention of investors, legal experts, and the public alike. The case revolves around the alleged misrepresentation and failure of due diligence by two insurance giants, Friends Provident International and Utmost International the Isle of Man. In this blog post, we will delve into the details of this class action, examining the claims, the defendant’s response, and the implications of this legal battle.

The Allegations: More than 700 investors, many of whom lost their life savings, have come together in a unified effort to seek justice and compensation for their financial losses. The claimants, consisting mainly of British nationals and expats, argue that they were sold life assurance products that were marketed as safe and low risk. However, these products were based on investment funds that ultimately collapsed, leaving them with nothing.

Misrepresentation and Negligence: The heart of the class action lies in the claimants’ allegations of misrepresentation and negligence by the insurance companies. They argue that Friends Provident International and Utmost International failed to carry out the necessary due diligence on the underlying funds and provided misleading information about the level of risk involved. Additionally, it is alleged that the companies continued to charge management fees on products that had become worthless after the funds collapsed.

The Response: Both Friends Provident International and Utmost International have vehemently denied any liability and have vowed to contest the claims. They assert that the investments were made through independent financial advisers and intermediaries, who were responsible for asset vetting and selection. The defendants argue that the advisers, not the insurance companies, should bear the responsibility for any due diligence failures.

The Significance: This class action carries significant implications not only for the investors involved but also for the insurance industry as a whole. It raises important questions about the responsibilities of financial institutions in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the investments they offer. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future disputes and shape the regulatory landscape surrounding investment products.

The Pursuit of Justice: As the trial draws to a close and closing submissions are made, the investors and the defendants await the court’s decision. The resolution of this class action could potentially provide the much-needed compensation and closure for those who lost their life savings. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of consumer protection and the accountability of financial institutions.

Conclusion: The class action against Friends Provident International and Utmost International Isle of Man represents a battle for justice and compensation for the investors who suffered significant financial losses. The allegations of misrepresentation and negligence have brought to light important issues surrounding due diligence and the responsibilities of financial institutions. As this legal battle nears its end, the outcome will shape not only the lives of the claimants but also the future practices of the insurance industry.

Simon Pack FPI iom

Friends Provident International Concludes Defense in Major Class Action Trial

Friends Provident International Concludes Defense in Major Class Action Trial

Friends Provident International (FPI) has wrapped up presenting its defense in a high-stakes £100 million class action lawsuit brought by over 700 investors. The trial, taking place at the Douglas High Court on the Isle of Man, involves investors who claim they were misled into purchasing life insurance products linked to investment funds that eventually collapsed.

The proceedings, scheduled to last seven weeks, have now moved to FPI’s counterpart Utmost International IoM beginning its defense on April 24th. Utmost, formerly known as Quilter International and Old Mutual International, is also a defendant in the case.

At the center of the dispute are allegations that FPI and Utmost negligently sold investment products like the New Earth Fund, LM Group of Funds, and Eco Resources Fund to customers across the globe, falsely representing them as safe and low-risk options. However, these funds ultimately failed, causing many investors to lose their life savings.

During FPI’s defense presentation, IFGL group sales director Simon Pack testified that life insurance companies did not promote or recommend specific investment funds to avoid perceived conflicts of interest. Pack stated surprise at the suggestion that sales reps would meet jointly with financial advisors and fund promoters.

“We were not in a position to recommend funds. We are not there to give advice,” Pack told the court. He acknowledged potential reputational damage when “on-boarded” funds later prove disastrous, but maintained that following competitors’ practices doesn’t make it “right.”

The trial judge, Acting Deemster James Corbett, reminded all parties of the “fine line between what is opinion and what is not” regarding evidence.

Class Action – Old Mutual International (formerly Skandia International) Quilter International now Utmost International and Friends Provident International

The Legal Battle Unveiled: Investors vs. Isle of Man Insurance Giants, Friends Provident International and Utmost International

Introduction: In a landmark legal showdown, over 700 investors are gearing up to challenge two Isle of Man insurance giants, Friends Provident International and Utmost International Isle of Man, in a £100m compensation battle. This article delves deep into the intricacies of the case, exploring the allegations, the defendants’ responses, and the potential implications of this high-stakes legal drama.

1. The Class Action Unfolds: The class action, comprising mainly British nationals and expats around the world, centers around allegations that investors were misled about the safety and risks associated with life assurance products sold by these companies. Despite assurances of safety and low risk, the investment funds collapsed, leaving many investors in financial distress.

2. Allegations of Negligence and Misrepresentation: Investors claim that even after the underlying funds collapsed, both Friends Provident International and Utmost International Isle of Man continued to charge management fees on products that had become virtually worthless. The alleged negligence and misrepresentation regarding the sale of these failed investment products have led to significant financial losses for the claimants. Most investors were approached by independent financial advisers through word of mouth but were shown branded corporate literature from the investment giants promoting the funds.

3. Defendants’ Stance and Legal Defense: Both insurance giants vehemently deny any liability, stating that the investments were designed for sophisticated investors and should not have been made available to retail investors. They argue that the claims lack merit and are robustly defending their positions in court.

4. Impact and Implications: The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the financial services industry, particularly in terms of investor protection, regulatory oversight, and transparency in investment offerings. It raises questions about due diligence, risk assessment, and the responsibilities of financial institutions towards their clients.

5. Conclusion: As the trial unfolds in Douglas High Court, the eyes of the financial world are keenly watching the proceedings. The case underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and investor trust in the financial services sector. The final judgment will not only determine the fate of the claimants but also set precedents for future investor protection and regulatory standards.

 

 

A significant legal showdown is on the horizon as more than 700 investors, many of whom have lost their life savings, gear up to take legal action against two insurance giants in the Isle of Man. The anticipated compensation battle amounts to £100 million and is poised to unfold at the Douglas High Court, commencing next Monday and projected to span seven weeks.

The class action lawsuit targets Friends Provident International and Utmost International Isle of Man, both based on the island, with allegations surrounding the sale of life assurance products marketed as safe and low risk. However, these products were revealed to be tied to investment funds that ultimately collapsed, leaving investors in dire financial straits.

Despite the collapse of the underlying funds, it is alleged that both companies continued to charge management fees on products that had become essentially worthless, compounding the losses suffered by investors.

The legal proceedings involve a substantial number of claimants, predominantly British nationals and expats residing worldwide. A total of 739 investors are involved in the class action, with 315 in the proceedings against Friends Provident and 425 in the claim against Utmost.

The investments in question were made through island-based subsidiaries, circumventing recourse through UK regulators for the affected investors. Among the investment products under scrutiny is the Axiom Legal Financing Fund, a collective investment scheme based in the Cayman Islands, which collapsed in 2012, resulting in losses of around £120 million for investors.

The defendants named in the case are Friends Provident International, headquartered in Castletown and part of International Finance Group Limited, and Utmost International Isle of Man, based in Onchan. Utmost International Isle of Man was previously known as Quilter International before its acquisition by the Utmost Group in 2021.

The legal claims against Friends Provident International and Utmost International Isle of Man are substantial, with the first claimant, Peter Kells from Bangkok, seeking damages exceeding £50 million for alleged negligence and misrepresentation in the sale of various failed investment products. These products include the New Earth Fund, Axiom Legal Financial Fund, LM Group of Funds, Eco Resources Fund, and Kijani Community Fund.

Similarly, Barry Dickinson, based in Thailand, is among the claimants seeking £50 million in damages from Quilter International for the sale of the same failed investment products.

Central to the legal dispute is the allegation that the investment funds were designed for sophisticated and professional investors and should not have been marketed to retail investors. The claims also highlight issues regarding the level of risk disclosed to investors and the purported failure to conduct due diligence on the underlying funds.

The legal representatives for Friends Provident International and Utmost Group have firmly denied any liability, emphasizing the historical nature of the investment decisions and the rigorous defense they intend to mount against the claims.

As the legal battle unfolds, it underscores broader concerns about investor protection, regulatory oversight, and transparency in the financial services sector. The outcomes of this legal challenge are likely to have far-reaching implications for investor trust and industry practices moving forward.

The SHOCKING FACTS financial advisors don’t want you to know

Offshore Investment Bonds The SHOCKING FACTS financial advisors don’t want you to know

The shocking facts financial advisers don’t want you to know

As you have downloaded this guide, I guess you are an expat with an offshore investment bond. The facts you are about to read may surprise, perhaps even shock you. They may make you feel aggrieved. But they could also help you gain control, security, and peace of mind.

Before we go any further I want to get one thing straight: there is nothing inherently wrong with offshore bonds.

They are just a ‘tax wrapper’. If set up the right way, they can be a perfectly appropriate investment. However, not every expat needs one. In fact, for many people living outside the UK, the tax savings are largely irrelevant and other options will often provide more flexibility.

What is wrong with the vast majority of offshore bonds is how they have been set up. By this I mean the commission paid to your adviser; the investment advice you have been given; and the ongoing service or lack of it.
Let me explain

So, if you invest £100,000, your exceptionally friendly and attentive ‘adviser’ could receive £12,000 in initial commission. I say ‘could’ because in stark reality, they could receive significantly more. Once all the smoke and mirrors have been deployed, it is not impossible for advisers to take upwards of £17,000 commission on a £100,000 bond.

That is a startling £17,000 or more over time on every £100,000 you invest, which would devastate your returns!

So where does this money come from? Quite simply, you. And if you do not recall ever signing a cheque to your adviser, there is a simple reason.

This is exactly the problem with offshore investment bonds.

Do you realise that when you buy a bond, it is not unusual for the vendor to receive 8% commission from the bond provider? And, on top of that, up to 4% for the investments they recommend within it.

So, if you invest £100,000, your exceptionally friendly and attentive ‘adviser’ could receive £12,000 in initial commission. I say ‘could’ because, in stark reality, they could receive significantly more. Once all the smoke and mirrors have been deployed, it is not impossible for advisers to take upwards of £17,000 commission on a £100,000 bond.

There is a famous story of a visitor in New York City more than a century ago. Walking along the docks, he admired the yachts owned by the heavy hitters on Wall Street. He then wondered where the customers’ yachts were. Of course, there were none. All the benefits had gone to the advisers rather than the clients.

Commission payments are often far from explicit. They are gradually deducted as investment and account charges over the first few years. You are contractually forced to pay them and may well find yourself locked into the bond for years to come, despite what your adviser tells you.

So where does that leave you?

Even with good investment growth, you may not make any money for the first 15 years of an investment (you can see all the figures, on page 5). That is assuming the commission payable is a conservative 6% rather than the 17% I mentioned.

Moreover, crippling charges are not the only problem. There is another related factor likely to prevent you from achieving the investment returns you deserve and hope for.

Although a bond allows you to invest pretty much anywhere, not all investments pay the same commission. So, advisers will often recommend the highest commission-paying funds, rather than those best suited to you.

In my career I have come across hundreds of clients invested in unsuitable and expensive investments. Even worse, many have no idea until they decide to cash in their bond and find it is worth far less than expected, sometimes much less than they invested in the first place.

Lastly, there is yet another problem: service or lack

of it. Again, this goes back to the commission. Your adviser receives all the commission upfront on day one. Hence, once the policy has been sold, they have very little incentive to serve you unless you can give them more money or introduce them to your friends (referrals) from whom they can also make money.

No boss would ever pay an employee the whole 10-year salary on their first day at work. If they did, would the employee turn up and perform well day after day? Probably not.

This is exactly what happens here.

If you have even the slightest concern that anything I have said may apply to investments you hold or are considering, please read the following pages carefully. We explain in simple terms what bonds are, show the effect of charges and investment selection on your returns, and tell you what practical steps you could consider to avoid or minimize these risks.

At the very least, this guide will help you avoid nasty surprises, and, even better, hopefully, build a more prosperous and transparent financial future.

What are offshore investment bonds and their tax benefits?

Offshore bonds are an investment ‘wrapper’: a tax-efficient container you can fill with pretty much any investment you like, though usually with the exception of physical property.

They can be attractive because of their tax efficiency in certain countries.

To put it simply, if you invest in a fund directly, you could be liable for tax in some countries. However, if you hold the same fund in a bond, you could save or at least defer that tax.

The value or significance of these benefits depends on the tax rules of the country in which you reside for tax purposes.

If you live in a high-tax jurisdiction such as the United Kingdom, you may find the tax benefits of the bonds relevant and valuable to you. Conversely, if you live in a low or no-tax jurisdiction such as the United Arab Emirates, you may find investing through a bond makes little or no difference at all to your tax position. In fact, you could be building up a large future tax liability.

Despite this, perhaps because of the levels of commission involved, international advisers tend to present offshore bonds as the panacea for all expat investors. Indeed, they are the most commonly held investment product amongst expats.

Who are the main offshore investment bond providers?

The main providers are typically the offshore arms of large international insurance companies. These include:
• AEGON Scottish Equitable International
• AXA Wealth International
• Canada Life International
• Clerical Medical (CMI Insurance Limited)
• Friends Provident International (soon to be Aviva)
• Hansard International
• Generali International
• Irish Life International (now SEB)
• Royal London 360 (now RL360)
• Royal Skandia (now Old Mutual International)
• Zurich International

How much do you pay for an
offshore investment bond?

In the world of investment, of course, nobody knows for a fact if and by how much your money will grow. The only certainty is the charges you pay.

In my 12 years as an international financial adviser, I have reviewed hundreds of products, each with a different charging structure and fees ranging from overpriced to downright exorbitant. A disturbing number were towards the upper end of the spectrum. Most people are paying way too much for a perceived benefit they may never receive.

How much is too much?

Based on my experience, a typical investment bond investor could be paying:

• 0.5%-1.5% annual charge to the pension or bond provider
• £400+ fixed annual fee to the bond provider
• 1.5% a year establishment charge for the first 5-10 years
• 3-8% initial commission on the investments held in the bond
• 1%-3% annual charge on investments (this could be much more, and more opaque if you are invested in structured products)

This can add up to annual charges in the region of 6% with initial charges of up to 8%, although, as I said, these can sometimes be much higher. You would need staggering performance year after year just to cover all the charges. What is worse, those charges are often hidden, so only those with degrees in maths can work out their total costs in real terms.

The following examples should help bring this to life.

Consider someone who invests £100,000 for 20 years. How much would their investment be worth in the end? How much would they have paid in charges?

In the first example, we shall assume the investment grows by an average of 5% a year (this is the mid-rate for projections recommended by the FCA, the UK Financial Conduct Authority).

As the graph shows, the investor in question would only start making money after 15 years. By the end of the 20 years, their £100,000 investment would be worth £107,768 – that means an abysmal effective return of just 0.08%, despite the steady rise in the stock market. This is because of the £88,698 paid out in total in charges.

But what if the investments perform really well?

What happens to the graph if the same investment enjoys average annual growth of 15%? To put things in context, in the period from 1900 to 2013, developed markets have enjoyed an average annual growth of 8.3%, whilst emerging markets have a growth of 7.4%.

With an average annual growth of 15%, the graph looks remarkably less scary than the previous one. Or does it?

It is true the investor starts making money in the first year and by the end his £100,000 has turned into £695,318. However, they will have paid £226,259 in charges (a higher amount than the previous example because of the higher fund value). Moreover, despite the prolonged market rally, because of the charges, they will have experienced an effective average return of just 5.95% a year. Charges have swallowed up  nearly two thirds of the market growth.

It is like swimming with weights. You need a lot of effort and energy just to stay afloat, and when you move forward, you do so much more slowly and painfully than you would otherwise.

So where does your money go?

A significant chunk is used to fund the adviser’s commission. The rest goes to the product provider and the investment manager.

When the adviser sells the bond to the client, at the outset they receive in the region of 7% upfront from the bond provider. The 1.5% annual establishment charge you pay for the first 5-10 years funds this and can add up to 15% over time. If you leave the offshore bond before paying off all these charges, they will be clawed back from you, resulting in either horrible penalties or a lack of flexibility.

When the adviser recommends the investments, they can also receive a large proportion, if not the whole, of the investment initial charge. This is typically 4%-8% but on some investments, such as structured products and hedge funds, it could be much more. This is either directly deducted from your original investment or ‘back-end loaded’, so you cannot see it – just like the bond itself (thereby accentuating the lack of flexibility).

After selling the product, the broker or ‘adviser’ is unlikely to receive any further commission. For instance, they do not normally receive any part of the annual investment charge. This means they will not benefit if your investments grow in value and conversely will not suffer if they fall. Quite simply, their interests are not aligned with yours.

Why such crippling charges?

Such shocking charges are the result of the way these types of financial products are sold, combined with a lack of competition and lax regulation. The international financial services industry today bears a striking resemblance to the UK financial services industry 30 years ago.

Most products are sold through international brokerages and their direct sales teams who masquerade (but are nothing of the sort) as  ‘financial advisers. They need to be paid, and so do the product providers. As all the main protagonists use the same business model and make money the same way, it is in nobody’s interest to apply fairer prices. Nor is there any regulation that prescribes what a fair price should be.

The odds are stacked against you

As the graphs show, you need some pretty exceptional investment performance over a long time to have any growth left after paying the extortionate charges.

How do you achieve that?

In many cases, the adviser’s answer is to recommend racier investments that on paper look as though they could deliver that exceptional performance.

However, the racier the investments, the higher the risk of them suffering a horrific fall. If that horrific fall  happens within the first few years from the establishment of the bond, there might be a chance

to recover. But what if it happens a couple of years before you need access to the money?

To add insult to injury, these types of investment

The SHOCKING FACTS financial advisors don’t want you to know

often attract much higher charges than more mainstream ones. So, typically an adviser profits much more from recommending them.

This does not mean highly risky investments should always be avoided.

They can play an important role as part of a well-balanced and diversified portfolio, subject to in-depth research and continuous monitoring.

However, many of the portfolios we see are stuffed full of expensive esoteric investments (e.g. structured products, hedge funds, etc.), dangerously undiversified. This leaves the client at risk of losing a huge portion, if not indeed all, of their investment.

In my experience, this is because of the two reasons I have mentioned earlier:

1. A well-diversified portfolio will aim to avoid excessive volatility (the very high highs and very low lows typical of more specialist investments). However, this means the potential returns of a diversified portfolio may well not be enough to cover the charges.

2. As a rule of thumb, the more  ‘alternative’ and opaque the investment, the higher the commission the salesman receives, therefore,  sadly, the more likely they are to recommend it.

Would you be happy to have an investment portfolio that  is in effect an elaborate gamble, in which the

only guaranteed winner is the outwardly trustworthy, charismatic broker?

In addition, this type of portfolio is far from a ‘buy and forget’ investment. It calls for in-depth research both at the outset and ongoing. Yet,  in my experience, very few IFAs have the time, resources, expertise, or even incentive to conduct quantitative and qualitative analysis on the investments they recommend.

What could you do?

If you have even the slightest concern that you have been sold an expensive offshore bond, loaded with unsuitable investments, you should look into it.

If I were reviewing my own portfolio, the main questions I would ask are:

1. How much am I paying in charges – and, indeed, what charges am I paying?

2. Where is my money invested? I would like to see a full breakdown of all the investments in my bond.

3. How have the investments performed to date? And how does that compare to the relevant benchmark? So, for instance, if I hold a fund investing in emerging markets, I would want to see its performance compared to the average of the sector.

4. How diversified is my portfolio? I would want

to see what exposure I have to different asset classes, sectors, and geographical regions.

5. How risky is my portfolio? I would want to make sure I am happy the risk profile matches my appetite for risk.

6. Are there any alternatives that offer lower costs, better potential returns, or ideally both?

7. What are the charges or penalties if I were to change my investments or transfer out of the bond?

This information should be included in statements or valuations you might have received from your adviser.

Failing that,  you could contact the bond provider and the investment companies to find out the different elements you need to unwrap the opaque charges and build up the full picture.

This could be time-consuming and potentially involve dealing with a number of companies, with different procedures and rules.

Can someone help?

CLIENT CASE STUDY

“I now realise I’ve been funding my former advisers’ retirement, not my own”

David Brown | Development Manager | Brunei Darussalam

“I’m a Chartered Engineer and have worked in the oil and gas sector around the world for 20 years. In that time, I’ve met various outwardly trustworthy international financial advisers who have let me down time and again.

Being analytical, I’m predominantly interested in the performance of my investments.  Over the years I’ve consistently failed to get any. Worse, I’ve lost money.

I was looking for a fresh approach when a friend from my military days introduced me to AES International.

I now realize I’ve been funding my former advisers’ retirement, not my own. AES International applies a rigorous and analytical method of reviewing risk against expected return. Their transparent cash flow modeling approach is something my wife and I have been seeking for years. It’s entirely different from my previous experiences with financial advice.

I now understand the importance of cash flow modeling, have a detailed plan which will save me tens of thousands of pounds, and am really clear on the performance I need to retire well.

My wife and I were so relieved to come on board, feel very confident in our choice, and look  forward to a relationship that both saves and makes us money.”

What happens next?

Why should you trust AES International?

You are probably thinking: “Why should I trust you? Aren’t you just another financial adviser?”

I do not blame you. As this guide shows, the international financial advice industry has done little over the years to deserve clients’ trust.

I discovered this myself in the most unusual way.

Like most of the Board of AES International, I was previously a British Army Officer. We have all been inculcated with the military values of integrity, and are passionate about maintaining the highest standards of professionalism.

I was first commissioned into the Queen’s Guards, then was selected for service with the Airborne Forces. This led me to travel around the world and meet fellow servicemen and expats.

From talking to them, I was appalled at the poor quality of much international financial advice.

So I obtained the necessary qualifications and started AES International in 2004.

With other like-minded professionals, I embarked on a crusade to transform a toxic industry that manufactures and vends  ‘products’ into a profession that helps people understand, protect and build their assets better than any other organization.

Because of my Army background, our first clients were soldiers, military and logistical contractors based in hostile territories.

Then, as the company grew, we extended our transparent and professional services to other expats.

By 2012, we were Britain’s fastest-growing financial business according to The Sunday Times Fast Track 100.

In the last few years, we have won over 26 financial awards, including Best Global Offshore Banking Team in 2014, Best Private Wealth Manager Adviser in the UAE in 2014, and Best International Financial Planning Firm in 2013.

What makes us different?

Our organization’s ethos is like the military’s. The highest standards of professionalism and integrity are not only expected but demanded.

1. A beacon of British standards abroad: Our UK business is authorized by the FCA (including for pension transfers) and we hold investment and insurance licenses in 36 different countries. Our professionally qualified advisers challenge the status quo and all adhere to a partnership code that governs the uniquely transparent and professional way we interact with our clients. We understand the international/cross-border marketplace and all its challenges as this is all we focus upon.

2. A different business model, where the company’s interests are perfectly aligned with our clients’: Unlike most international IFAs, we do not rely on huge initial commissions. Instead, we retain a very small percentage of the amount you have invested with us over time.

This means you pay substantially less initial commission and do not have to wait years before seeing any growth in your investments.

It also means our best interest lies both in recommending decent products and investments and also looking after you and your portfolio over time. The more your investments grow, the better we serve you and the longer you stay with us, the more we make. If we disappoint you and you leave us, we lose money.

3. Centralised Investment Research: Investment performance is critical and we believe it is wrong to put your faith in an individual financial adviser to select and manage your portfolio.

This is why we have created an independent and centralized Investment Team. They are responsible for ensuring clients have access to the very best funds which are of sufficient quality, match client risk profiles/expectations, and are managed in an appropriate manner.

The Investment Team applies quantitative and qualitative analysis to arrive at a White List of Funds – the funds they believe most likely to deliver superior returns over time across different sectors and risk profiles.

We recognize that no single investment house has a monopoly of investment expertise, so we remain

CLIENT CASE STUDY

“I have much greater security and confidence”

Louiza May | International Teacher | UAE

“As an international teacher and single parent, my life is hectic. I haven’t had the time or knowledge to get involved with my finances.

Like many teachers, I was indirectly introduced to someone I now know was an unregulated international adviser. He made some fantastic sounding promises regarding my UK Teachers Pension Scheme:  enhanced benefits and flexibility to secure my daughter’s future.

Although I never received a clear explanation of how the adviser made money, he was so friendly and attentive on his visits to the school, by phone, and by email that I proceeded with his recommendation. I  moved my pension to a QROPS which the adviser then invested into a Royal London 360 Offshore Bond.

Almost immediately after this, I met AES International. I was shocked to discover I had inadvertently forfeited my guaranteed pension rights and inefficiently taken out a tax wrapper within a tax wrapper. I  also realized the QROPS, Offshore Bond and the investments within it were most likely unsuitable. AES  also showed me how

to read and understand my RL 360 valuation so I saw I had immediately lost 20% of the transfer in value in hidden charges.

I had mistakenly put my faith in a charismatic individual, not an organization. I, therefore, completed a one-page form and switched the agency of my investment to AES International.

The fact that AES International is so highly regulated, has won a lot of awards, is a large, completely, and utterly transparent international business with a centralized investment team, has given me genuine and well-founded peace of mind – my daughter’s future is safe and secure. I can now hope my pension will recover in value over time.

I now understand how the allegedly ‘free’ advice works and stand to make savings of £100s of pounds a year whilst hopefully getting the performance my retirement account really deserves it.

Overall, I have much greater security and confidence moving forwards.

fiercely independent, and carefully select a small number of both passive and active managers of truly outstanding ability.

This process delivers transparency, peace of mind, security, and performance which are simply unattainable through a single adviser.

4. Centralised compliance and risk management: we have a compliance team based in the UK. They review every single piece of information and every

recommendation we send our clients worldwide, to ensure it adheres to the highest regulatory principles regardless of jurisdiction and is in the client’s best interest. This is not a requirement. It is a choice.

5. A team-based approach to servicing: Our contact centre is open 6am-5pm GMT. It is staffed by QFC Level 4 qualified advisers and client service professionals available to answer questions and support you and where appropriate your adviser in providing a high level of ongoing service.

We are happy to take the strain

You may be one of the few investors whose bond has been responsibly set up and consequently is not crippled by exorbitant charges. If so, the free review will confirm this and help you put any concerns to one side.

If, however, your offshore bonds were set up less than responsibly, as is sadly all too often the case, we

are happy to take the strain. Simply click on the button below and request a no-obligation consultation with a member of our centralized investment team.

We can help you stop building someone else’s wealth and concentrate on building your own.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This guide aims to provide general information on offshore investment bonds. It is a short and simplified summary of a complex subject, so please do not make any decisions based solely on the contents of this guide. Whether or not an offshore investment bond and the investments within it are appropriate to you will depend on many factors, including your individual needs and circumstances.

LM Investment Scam

LM/MPF Managed Performance Fund If you were a victim of the LM Investments, There is still hope of recovering your lost money.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wlbkrs94mr8

LM/MPF Managed Performance Fund If you were a victim of the LM Investments, mis-management of funds, fund fraud, Breach of trust with a fraudulent intention, or otherwise known as a Ponzi scheme. There is still hope of recovering your lost money. Between 2009 and 2013, LM Investments Pty Ltd (LM), was the fund manager of LM Managed Performance Fund (LM/MPF) (Gold Coast Australia). LM/MPF was approved by the Insurers, to be placed on the Bond platform and recommended to the IFAs as intermediaries for the Insurers.

The IFAs recommended investment in the LM/MPF and other LM products to clients between 2009 and 2013. As Bondholders, these clients were also clients of the Insurers. The LM/MPF was reviewed by the Insurer’s and the valuation statements of the LM/MPF were sent to clients by the Insurers between 2009 and 2013. LM operated as the Responsible Entity (the fund manager), for the LM First Mortgage Income Fund (LM/FMIF). The LM/FMIF was frozen in 2009 with no redemption payments and went into receivership on 8 August 2013, with BDO being appointed as receivers. BDO has estimated a return to investors, as of June 2016, of less than 15 cents in the dollar, and over AUD$300 million in losses for thousands of investors. In 2009, LM and its directors, irrespective of the losses in LM/FMIF, established and marketed the LM/MPF fund to approximately 5,000 international investors – raising approximately AUD$430 million between 2009 and 2013. The fund had an investment memorandum rather than a prospectus and was designated for professional investors only and not for retail investors. The investment memoranda were provided to the Insurers for sharing with investors. This did not happen. The investment memoranda had instructions and documentation as to how to make an investment in the fund. The Insurers would complete the documentation to make an initial investment thereby establishing themselves as the professional investor. Thereafter, for each subsequent investment, the Insurer was required to complete further documentation. This documentation required a warranty that no laws associated with the investment had been breached. Clearly, this warranty would cover the registration of IFA, product, and Insurer. In or about 2010, LM and one of its directors, Peter Drake, made an application to the Insurers to admit LM/MPF onto its Bond platform. The application was accepted following due diligence of LM/MPF by the Insurers. That review would have revealed that one of LM’s other funds, namely LM/FMIF, was then suspended from trading and was unable to pay investors. The fund is now in the hands of a liquidator. Despite this knowledge, the Insurers accepted LM/MPF on its bond platforms. Further, in relation to LM the insurers in their due diligence ignored serious red flags. When the FMIF (First Mortgage Income Fund) was suspended in 2009, Friends Provident International and Quilter (Old Mutual International) should have questioned the validity of the LM MPF. It became apparent that most of the assets the LM MPF invested in had first mortgages held by LM’s FMIF and also were Peter Drake developments (the Director of LMMPF and the Responsible Entity (Trustee) LM Management. Basic enquiries by the FPI and Quilter (OMI) in their due diligence would have revealed this and the conflict of interest involving Drake. LM marketed LM/MPF to IFAs in the jurisdictions, announcing that it had been admitted onto the Bond platforms by the insurers. IFAs in the jurisdictions promoted, marketed, and sold to investors LM/MPF via the Insurer’s Bond products. Elderly UK investors deposited substantial amounts of their life savings into LM/MPF. In or about 2010, because of concerns raised about the slow payment of redemptions, the Insurers suspended LM/MPF from its Bond platform, and its staff attended LM on the Gold Coast, Australia, and conducted a review. In or about late 2010, the suspension was removed from LM/MPF and the fund continued on the Bond platform organized by the Insurers. The IFAs in the jurisdictions continued to market the Bond products and LM/MPF on the Bond platform between 2010 and March 2013. There were no warnings or disclosures sent to investors by the Insurers, to indicate that they had raised concerns about LM/MPF and had suspended it for a time on their Bond platform. In March 2013, LM/MPF went into administration, and then receivership, owing approximately AUD$430 million to 5,000 investors internationally. Elderly UK investors are many of those who lost all their funds. If you have purchased LM/MPF Managed Performance Fund and or other LM Group funds including the Trilogy Wholesale FMIF, through a trustee or direct on the insurer’s platform and have lost money you may be entitled to recover money lost. Please visit our website and complete the questionnaire join the group action today! https://expatinvestmentfraud.com

New Earth Funds

IoM’s New Earth boss slams regulator probe a ‘witch hunt’

John Bourbon, the former director of Isle of Man-based Premier Group, the company behind the ill-fated £300m New Earth Group of funds, has described the regulator’s decision to investigate allegations of mis-selling against the fund manager “something of a witch hunt”.

Speaking to Isle of Man Today, Bourbon, a former senior official at the Isle of Man financial services regulator, said that despite 3,247 investors facing losses of almost £292m ($372m, €332m), a greater number of people have made a profit from New Earth, which invested in recycling plants in the UK.

New Earth Recycling and Renewables (NERR) group of funds were wound up by the Isle of Man authorities last July, while another Premier Group investment Eco Resources Fund, was ordered to be shut in March this year.

A total of 189 investors lost up to £61m from the Eco Resources Fund, which invested in bamboo plantations in Nicaragua, with tax payers on the Isle of Man picking up the bill for the collapse of both funds.

Large commissions

Bourbon’s comments come despite allegations by the Premier Shareholder’s Group, a campaign group for investors, many of whom claim to have lost their life savings, that Premier Group (Isle of Man) paid large commissions to “unqualified and unlicensed” agents to target pensioners by marketing their funds as low risk.

The group also claims investors were locked in with “punitive” exit fees, often as high as 30%, which they were not told about when they signed up.

However, Bourbon denied the accusations, adding: “It is highly unlikely that anybody could have a significant investment in Premier Group without understanding the risk.”

Boubon insisted all fees and charges were clearly set out in the offer document that investors were required to sign to confirm their status as an experienced investor.

He added that it was financial advisers’ “responsibility to check whether investments were suitable for their clients”, adding that a number of Premier group funds were sold by unregulated IFAs in Spain where claims against them have been upheld.

Regulator’s failure

The Premier Shareholder’s Group also accused Isle of Man authorities, including the Financial Service Authority (FSA) of failing to protect investors, claiming the regulator had received complaints about the Premier Group funds as early as 2002.

The group added that despite concerns raised with the authorities, the regulator still went ahead and granted a new licence to the fund manager in 2007.

Last month, Isle of Man treasury minister Alfred Cannan has confirmed that the island’s Financial Services Authority (IOMFSA) is “undertaking a review” of unregulated funds and will “make appropriate recommendations for change”.

The Isle of Man Financial Services Authority said it is now investigating historic allegations against Premier Group (Isle of Man)

“The FSA can confirm the allegations and events surrounding PGIOM and its group of companies are actively under review by the FSA,” the watchdog told IoM Today.

‘Witch hunt’

Bourbon slammed the regulatory action as ’something of a witch hunt’.

“There is a popular view in the market that certain negative elements of the Moneyval report have placed pressure on the financial services regulator because they do not have examples that they can give of successful prosecutions when compared with jurisdictions that have strong Mafia and/or other criminal activity.

THE LMIM COLLAPSE

THE LMIM COLLAPSE: ONE YEAR LATER, AN INVESTOR SPEAKS OUT

2/4/2014

“I was completely 
shattered,
my life in ruins”

Dozens of expats in Thailand lost their life savings when the huge Australian property fund went into voluntary liquidation in March 2013. The collapse of LMIM had a devastating effect on many of these investors who had been led to believe their money was being managed by a company that was strictly regulated and boasted a successful 14-year track record. One of the victims of this financial fiasco recalls how he was persuaded to invest in the fund and the terrible moment he was told by his independent financial adviser (IFA) that all of his money had gone.
Picture

Picture

JUST over a year ago, on March 19, 2013, longtime Bangkok expatriate Roy Fox received a telephone call at his home that would change his life forever. It was, he says, the call that one always reads about and dreads, but never expects.The caller was an independent financial adviser (IFA), a fellow Brit and Bangkok resident to whom Roy had entrusted a substantial portion of the savings he had carefully built up during a 40-year career spent working in Europe and Asia.

“I’ve got something to tell you,” said the caller, somewhat nervously.

“What’s up, Mike?” asked Roy.

“I’m afraid I have some bad news. I have to tell you that LM Investment Management (LMIM) has gone into voluntary liquidation.”

Roy froze. He recognized instantly the name LMIM, and he knew exactly what “voluntary liquidation” meant.

But as much as he tried to deny to himself such a possibility, it was fast  dawning on him that the money he had been advised to invest in LMIM, a A$3 billion property fund set up in Australia’s Gold Coast in 1997 by New Zealander Peter Drake, may have gone. And in one gut-wrenching moment, Roy saw his well-laid plans for a comfortable, secure retirement vanish into thin air. “I was completely shattered, my life in ruins,” he says.After an embarrassed pause, Mike rang off. As the boss of one of the 

financial advisory companies that had been marketing LMIM in Thailand for several years, it was his job to repeat this same conversation to the many other expatriate clients whom he had also persuaded to put their savings into this now-defunct fund.

During the following months, LMIM’s spectacular collapse was the subject of intense media scrutiny along with drawn-out investigations by Australia’s corporate watchdogs. Some serious finger-pointing at those believed responsible for the loss of so much money was carried out by administrators both here in Thailand and in Australia as anxious investors searched hopefully for ways to reduce their losses while trying to come to terms with their worst financial nightmare.

One year later, far from resolving anything, the investigations appear to have all but dried up. Peter Drake has faced nothing worse than having his passport seized and certain assets frozen. There’s even an unconfirmed report of him resuming his career in finance.

Most disturbingly, though, it looks increasingly likely that investors in LMIM will not even receive a small percentage of their money from the administrators – especially as their savings apparently rank behind the fees of the IFAs, the very same people who recommended the useless investment in the first place.
So how did an intelligent, worldly businessman like Roy get involved in LMIM? How was he persuaded to part with the best part of his savings to invest in an ultimately dud company?

Trust is the core issue here, says Roy.

“You put infinite trust in people like lawyers and doctors, and it’s the same with so-called financial advisers. They speak in the same professional way and you believe in them because they’re very clever at gaining your trust.

“Was I that stupid? Should I have believed their promises? These are questions I keep asking myself. My family didn’t believe that we had lost so much of our money. They berated me, that the family’s ‘jewels’ had gone literally in a second. It’s taken me nine months to understand what I did. But like so many others, when I first started investing, I thought it was the correct thing to do.”

Roy, who describes his background as “modest, typically British middle class,” says the investment was part of carefully laid plans to provide long term financial security in later life.

Retirement is, of course, no longer an option. Now in his 60s, Roy will have to continue working for the rest of his days, due to LMIM’s collapse.

“People in their 40s and 50s still have maybe 15 years’ working life to recover their losses. But for those of us in our 60s, close to pensionable age, the bell has gone – our working lives should be over. But we can’t stop working. It’s terrible. We’ve been slaughtered.

“The thought of a peaceful, contented time at this stage of my life has been replaced by worry, headaches and fear of financially surviving and getting through day by day.

Roy took the fateful decision to start investing in 2006, two years after ending a lifelong career working for major corporations.“I decided on a completely different career path and financial security was of paramount importance. My new life would mean losing the financial protection a big company had given me – a package that included a regular salary, car and a pension.”

He met Mike through friends who recommended him “as a good bloke who could be trusted.”

“After further meetings, I decided to take his advice and began investing through his company. Basically I wanted a better return on my savings. My one caveat to Mike was that my principle – my savings – should not be touched.

“I told him that I had heard about other people being burned by IFAs, so I was naturally somewhat suspect about the investment. I kept telling Mike to safeguard my money, which, naturally, he agreed to do.

Why did Roy choose to go with the LM property fund?

“The first thing was the reputation and image of Australia as a safe and heavily regulated investment haven. Originally, I was supposed to be investing in a secure and protected currency fund but somehow my investment ended up in a property fund. At the time I didn’t question this, but today I am suspicious and wonder whether someone was doubling their commission by making the switch.“Anyway, after several meetings, I went along with Mike’s advice, even though the last thing I wanted was to put my money at any kind of risk.”

To his credit, Mike was never overbearing in their conversations. “But at the same time he was extremely persuasive,” remembers Roy.

“Mike was also enthusiastic about LMIM, using words and phrases that suggested it had a great track record, it was Australian and heavily regulated – in other words, rock solid, like a bank.

“I checked with others who had invested in LMIM and they too believed we’d be looked after.

“We were promised good returns on our investment, and the only proviso was that after one year, the rate of interest could be changed.

“During mid-2011, LMIM offered us a three-year term with annual returns of 9%. Till then I’d been getting 7-8%. At this stage, nothing looked untoward about LMIM, but, shortly after, the rate we’d been promised dropped from 9% to 8.5%, which I didn’t object to, as I realized that we were dealing with market realism and rates could change.

“I didn’t know much about LM’s property fund, but always thought it was officially regulated by Australian authorities. But it wasn’t. One of the biggest accusations today is how Mike and other IFAs were able to sell a fund that was not regulated and targeted at people nearing a pensionable age.

“I understood that the fund was originally set up to generate funds for property mortgages. I had no reason to question it at first since there were no whispers or gossip about its viability. But I did get a horrible sinking feeling, a premonition of sorts, back in 2012 when I suddenly thought of the consequences to me and my future if the fund were to collapse. But my worries soon passed as I continued receiving my monthly interest payments and everything seemed OK.”

Did Roy ever check on Peter Drake and his company? “Yes, I checked their website regularly and I talked to friends and other investors. Nobody expressed any kind of concern.

Picture

“I never saw the company’s financial results nor did I have any idea how the fund was performing. If I was a financial sort of person, an economist or accountant, which I’m not, I would probably have asked to see the company’s bank statements and audited accounts. That’s why I employ a financial adviser – to do these things for me. And I trust what they tell me.”

Yet there were signals that not all was right with LMIM. Explains Roy: “Sometime in July 2012, I received an email from them, mentioning late interest payments and return on capital. The following day Mike called me and tried to cover up the email’s contents. I challenged him, but he merely brushed off my worries, saying LMIM sent it out by mistake.

“Nothing happened and everything seemed normal right up until the day I received that call from Mike telling me the game was over. LMIM had collapsed. I was mortified. My lifetime savings had gone.

“Over the next few months, the situation was given a positive spin by LMIM on its website and by Mike, who was very confident that we’d get back at least 50% of our money. This was cold comfort but it did offer a glimmer of hope that I’d recover some of my investment.

“Later, the administrators put out a bulletin saying that LMIM had very little in assets and what it did have was hyped, overvalued and misrepresented.”

From today’s perspective, what does Roy make of LMIM and its property investments? “In my mind, the fund was nothing more than a ponzi scheme – a complete fiasco.”

Roy is one of many expatriates based in Thailand who committed money to LMIM through a number of local IFAs. In his case, the sum involved was substantially more than half his savings. Others put in huge sums, as much as half a million US dollars or more, while some invested smaller amounts that were nevertheless painful to lose.

For Roy, his experience raises many questions. For example, did any of the IFAs really check what LMIM was doing and how it was performing? “It seems either they couldn’t or didn’t want to,” is his assessment.

“The entire episode is scandalous. I feel very deceived and very angry. The IFAs behind LMIM should together be made accountable.

“Looking back now, it appears from information provided by the LM Investor Victim Centre that LMIM was already in trouble back in 2009, so why didn’t the IFAs take heed of it?

“Also, looking back, I don’t know how I got sucked in. Nor do other investors I’ve spoken to. We’re all at a loss to explain.”

Roy, who says he eventually managed to get a small apology out of Mike, now suggests that the term IFA is misleading. “They don’t advise – they just sell. They have no ethics, and when things go wrong, they’re all over the place.

“But these same IFAs are still running around in fancy cars and enjoying an enviable lifestyle. They’ve not suffered at all. There’s no remorse, no heart. I sincerely believe they should give back the commissions to help compensate investors. But I also know it won’t happen.”

Picture

What about Mike – is it possible that he knew about LMIM’s impending collapse?

“Peter Drake was apparently in Bangkok on several occasions so some of these IFAs must have had a close relationship with the mother company and surely they would have inquired about the fund’s performance?”

Even Roy admits that may not be the case. “The IFAs were still selling LMIM the day before the fund collapsed,” he says. “For me, that’s real incompetence.”

The administrators appointed to handle LMIM have added to the furore. In its report, FTI Consulting said: “From our investigations to date, there is evidence to indicate the company may have traded whilst insolvent for a period and entered into certain transactions that may be voidable against a liquidator.”

With both his capital and monthly payments gone, Roy was unable to meet various financial obligations. As a result, he was forced to take out expensive loans to pay for bills – a situation he thought he’d never have to face.

The effect was devastating. “I lost confidence in myself, got sick and couldn’t work for several months. One’s belief in self-judgment is shattered. All my plans about retirement, taking time off to travel and relax – they’re all gone.

“Now I have to watch every penny. I feel very bitter. And I’ll have to work forever.

“Luckily, I don’t have children. Other investors in LMIM do – so how are they going to pay when their kids are halfway through schooling or university? They’ve been slaughtered overnight.”

Roy is not optimistic about clawing back any of his money. Since the fund was not designed for Australian nationals, he believes the authorities there are not really interested in the situation and would prefer to sweep it under the carpet.

Today, he is still trying to come to terms with his losses and what they have done to his life. Many questions still need to be asked, he believes. For instance, was LMIM ever properly audited? Wasn’t its board of directors aware of its precarious position?”

He also wonders out loud why IFAs operating here are not strictly regulated as they are back in the UK. “And how can they be permitted to market an unregulated fund to expatriates and people nearing their pensionable age?

“It beggars belief,” says Roy.

He’s also critical of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), which issued a statement in April of last year revealing that the LMIM fund was unregistered. “This is a real disgrace,” he adds.

Amazingly, Roy still gets several calls a week from IFAs. Nowadays he knows exactly how to handle them.

For more information about LMIM, go to https://sites.Google/site/investorvictimcentre
*Names in this article have been changed


IFA: How to ‘safely’ invest in Australia

This is how one financial planner in Thailand marketed the property fund, stressing that Australia has “some of the world’s best performing property markets” and adding that LMIM “has a track record of managing returns in this asset class for more than 14 years.”

•  Since the fund’s collapse in March last year, the administrators FTI Consulting have charged $2.4 million in fees, or $130,000 a week. Disbursements came to another $2 million.

•  Action against LMIM’s other directors – Francene Mulder, Katherine Phillips and Eghard Van Der Hoven – is being considered.

• EuroWeekly has reported that in Spain “hundreds if not thousands” of expats living on their investments were caught up in the scam, with many now having no money to live on.

• Cyprus-based IFA Scott Kennedy persuaded 180 people to invest in LMIM while pocketing 10 percent commission on the deals, according to the Daily Record newspaper. But Kennedy, 54, insisted that his commission of £1million has been put back into a pot to help investors with legal fees. He says he lost a £355,000 investment in the collapse.

Eco Resources Fund

Mystery surrounds bamboo plantations

EWAN LAMB concludes our trilogy on investors’ lost millions

The liquidator of the bankrupt Eco Resources Fund, which has cost shareholders and creditors in faraway bamboo plantations many millions of pounds, has been told the US finance company which now owns the forests may be willing to sell the assets back to ERF for $10 million.

Unfortunately the Isle of Man-based fund has only £12,555 in its coffers, and according to liquidator Gordon Wilson no-one “will be likely to invest or lend $10 million to the fund in current circumstances”.

Meanwhile, a report compiled by Mr Wilson suggests confusion reigns over who actually owns the plantations in Nicaragua and South Africa, which are part of an extremely complicated business set-up.

The Eco Fund was part of the Premier Group (Isle of Man) Ltd.’s empire which also included the worthless New Earth Recycling & Renewables [Infrastructure] Fund or NERR.

The NERR organisation, now also under investigation by a different team of insolvency experts, was meant to bankroll a £23 million waste treatment facility for the Scottish Borders before the deal was abandoned in 2015, leaving the local council’s strategy for garbage disposal in complete disarray.

Details of a meeting involving Mr Wilson and American businessman Troy Wiseman, founder of EcoPlanet Bamboo, which operates the plantations, have been made public for the first time. Mr Wiseman had also been an investor in Sustainable Asset Lending (SAL), believed to be the current owners of the bamboo real estate. Premier directors John Bourbon and Jamie Sutton were also present.

The report from Mr Wilson to investors, shareholders and creditors says: “Mr Wiseman opened the meeting by saying that he was attending as an inverstor in the fund and that he had no remaining executive role in or control over SAL. This was disappointing as we had believed that Mr Wiseman had control over SAL and it was on that understanding that we agreed to meet.

“For the avoidance of doubt, we still believe (based on our assessment of his conduct) that Mr Wiseman is involved with SAL as an investor and as either a controller or manager or influencer. Mr Wiseman then informed us that SAL had foreclosed on the plantation companies’ loans and that he had seen stock certificates in the plantation companies in SAL’s name”.

Mr Wiseman was then asked to provide evidence that the foreclosure had occurred, details as to who had done what, who knew what and when this all happened. “He agreed to provide these details and Mr Sutton has been following that up under our supervision.

“We don’t believe that Eco Bamboo Isle of Man or ERF ever gave permission to the plantation companies to include their shares as security for the SAL debts. This could prove to be a pivotal point if the fund is to retain or regain any interest in these plantations going forward”.

Since the meeting with Mr Wiseman in January, no information has been forthcoming from him or from SAL to demonstrate or explain what has happened to the plantations or shares in the various companies, wrote Mr Wilson.

“However, on a number of occasions since then, Mr Wiseman has indicated that SAL may be willing to sell the fund its plantations back for $10 million. Mr Wiseman knows all too well that the fund does not have $10 million. It is likely that as liquidator we will formally ask Mr Wiseman to provide evidence in order that we might better explain to you all what has happened”.

The report warns there are insufficient remaining liquid funds in the structure to pay for the cost of liquidation and “there are more than ample grounds to doubt that there will ever be any recovery from the bamboo plantations. We think it is unlikely that there will be any return on investment for investors or any dividend for creditors”.

The Isle of Man public purse will cover reasonable liquidation costs including costs to investigate and if necessary take action against those who may be accountable for the failure of the fund, said Mr Wilson.

Investment Drake

LM frozen funds: commissions before client earnings

ByMichael West

July 30, 2013 — 12.11pmSave

 

 

ShareNormal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size

Advertisement

The financial advisers who put their clients into LM Investment Management’s frozen funds stand to collect millions in commission before their clients see any return.

The latest administrators report for LM Investment Management shows commissions of $10 million are subject to claims by financial advisers. However, the actual investors themselves have not been deemed by the LM group administrators to be creditors. Rather, their savings rank behind the fees of the very people who put them into these dud investments in the first place.

Business Day revealed yesterday LM founder Peter Drake had taken at least $46 million in loans before his mortgage fund empire collapsed earlier this year. These have not been repaid and Drake appears headed for bankruptcy.

In light of the loans to Drake and the feeding frenzy by the administrators and their lawyers, the prospective returns for investors in the LM suite of funds is diminishing with every week that passes.

Since the collapse in March this year, the administrators FTI Consulting have charged $2.4 million in fees, or $130,000 a week. Disbursements came to another $2 million.

The FTI report into LMIM, and its report into LM Administration, show the administrators are seeking to recover the Drake loans. They are also considering action against LM’s other directors – Francene Mulder, Katherine Phillips and Eghard Van Der Hoven.

“From our investigations to date, there is evidence to indicate the company may have traded whilst insolvent for a period and entered into certain transactions that may be voidable against a liquidator,” says the report.

It is investigating “uncommercial transactions”, including $20.6 million in payments made between January 2012 and March 19 this year, when the administration began. Some 12 per cent of this involved payments to Drake and other related parties.

Deals with associates had been a feature of LM long before then. According to evidence in the Supreme Court proceedings, $163 million in related party transactions had been made across all the funds and LM entities.

Another four directors – Simon Tickner, Lisa Maree Darcy, John O’Sullivan and Grant Fischer – resigned last year as LM’s financial position was deteriorating.

Advertisement

https://7c3bf06da4b3bd2934e218a9255cbe4b.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

The report cited four main reasons for LM’s collapse:

* the inability of the Managed Performance Fund (MPF) to meet margin calls on foreign exchange in February and March this year,

* institutional investors Friends Provident and Royal Skandia removing MPF as an investment option,

* the consequent fall in management fee revenue,

* significant related party payments from LM Administration (read the Drake loans).

But the causes go deeper than that. LM had an overly complex structure with inadequate corporate governance and controls. For instance, the failure of management to ensure independent property valuations in the funds was a critical weakness.

Despite these things and even despite the ravages of the global financial crisis in 2008, Peter Drake was able to keep marketing worldwide and raising more money for the LM funds until 2012.

Unfortunately for his investors – as opposed to their financial planners who were on commission of at least 3 per cent of their clients’ savings – the fund fees were too high. And a good deal of this was even pre-paid – that is, paid up front before the service was actually provided (and before the collapse came).

LM Administration, which is the vehicle from which Drake took the greatest personal benefit, and of which he was sole director and shareholder, received $14 million in “pre-paid income” from six LM funds, including the flagship LM First Mortgage Income Fund.

In 2010 and 2011, even as many of the funds were frozen, the gross income of LMA – also the company which made a $30 million in loans to Drake – increased by 118 per cent, from $9.5 million to $20.8 million, “mainly due to a 200.49 per cent increase in management fees”.

Via the circuitous LM corporate structure, fees were paid (including the pre-payments) from the funds into LM Investment Management. Then much of this was then passed through to Drake’s LMA via service agreements. LMA, in turn, lent Drake $30 million – although he also drew a $16 million loan straight from one of the funds, the Managed Performance Fund – into his Hong Kong company Century Star Investments (CSI).

CSI, in turn, was a major shareholder in LM.

The director loans to Peter Drake may face scrutiny from the Tax Office if they are deemed as income as there is no evidence from public materials that there was any tax paid. It may be that $46 million in Drake loans remains, as yet, as good as tax free income for the director.

As outlined in this story, the Kiwi businessman also lent money from the funds to a number of companies he controlled to do property developments.

More than half of the funds in the MPF – $234 million – had been directed into the Maddison Estate project in the hinterland of the Gold Coast. Another Drake entity controlled the project.

According to the administrators’ report, MPF’s financial advisers have claims for $2.7 million in commissions and the First Mortgage Investment Fund’s advisers have claims for $7.4 million even though the fund was frozen long before the LM collapse. Fees were paid to advisers despite investors being locked in without the prospect of redemption.

FTI is locked in a skirmish with the Trilogy Group for the management rights to the flagship LM First Mortgage Income Fund. Trilogy is the major unit-holder in the fund with 23 per cent. It says it would be better for investors if the fund were managed by a Responsible Entity rather than paying large fees to a receiver or liquidator as well.

For its part, FTI is now recommending liquidation.

Trilogy is seeking orders in the Queensland Supreme Court to replace LM Investment Management, and therefore FTI, as responsible entity. Judgement is pending.

Peter Drake has also brought proceedings against Fairfax Media and this reporter for defamation. Fairfax is defending the case.

The victims: Manita Khuller and Andrew Drummond lost thousands of pounds from their pension funds

The expat pensions that vanished

Rogue salesmen snared hundreds in a mis-selling scandal. Now big firms and regulators are under scrutiny.

The victims: Manita Khuller and Andrew Drummond lost thousands of pounds from their pension funds
The victims: Manita Khuller and Andrew Drummond lost thousands of pounds from their pension funds

Manita Khuller had only just moved to Thailand when a friend invited her to a party for expats organised by the British Chambers of Commerce.

It was an event that would turn her life upside down and leave her fighting for her life savings for the next decade.

Khuller, 51 at the time, was only recently divorced and had moved to Bangkok from London with her 11-year-old son to work as a management consultant.

She had traveled a lot in her career but this was the first time she had moved abroad. She was staying in a flat in downtown Bangkok, paid for by her employer, Ogilvy & Mather, a subsidiary of the global advertising company WPP.

It was a humid November day for the garden party, held at a local park. About 100 British expats mingled, enjoying free drinks and canapés. Khuller got chatting to Gary Bradford, a smartly dressed, softly spoken, middle-aged financial adviser, who was also from the UK. After a while the discussion turned to Khuller’s pensions.

“As a financial adviser it seemed like a natural thing for him to ask me about,” Khuller said. “I had little idea about pensions and tax, now that I was living as an expat for the first time.”

Bradford said he could simplify her affairs, save tax and allow her to pass on more money to her son.

Planning for retirement had been on her mind, so she agreed to meet Bradford, who worked for Professional Portfolio International (PPI). Its website says it offers “the highest level of financial planning and wealth management related services to clients throughout Southeast Asia and beyond”.

Over coffee at the luxury Emporium Suites Hotel in central Bangkok, Khuller told Bradford that she did not want to take too many risks as she was nearing retirement. She had about £320,000 in final salary pensions built up over decades working for Unilever and Procter & Gamble. He suggested she do what thousands of other expats were doing at the time, and move her money into a Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme (Qrops).

These pensions were developed by the Treasury in 2006 and recognised by HM Revenue & Customs. They were designed to help British workers to head overseas for jobs and still keep saving for retirement in a tax-efficient way.

Khuller agreed to move her money to a Qrops offered by the finance firm Skandia, which was later known as Quilter International and is now Utmost International. Within three years one of her investments would fail and another would be frozen, cutting her retirement fund by about half.

She would later discover that her investments and adviser were unregulated, leaving her no route to gain compensation. Bradford would become impossible to contact.

Khuller, now 61, has spent the past decade tied up in legal battles trying to get the pension that was scattered around the world, without incurring thousands of pounds in charges.

She is one of hundreds of British expats who are starting to realise that their retirement plans have been shattered after they were persuaded by financial advisers to put their money into Qrops, which they believed were approved by the UK government.

Many find that the British advisers working overseas who convinced them to make their investments have now disappeared, and there is little help they can get from regulators.

Utmost International and RL360, two firms that offer investment products to expats, face a class action worth up to £200 million over allegations of widespread mis-selling by subsidiaries they now own, via financial advisers.

These subsidiaries, Royal Skandia Life Assurance and Friends Provident International, are also accused by lawyers of creating products that do not conform to regulatory standards in various jurisdictions around the world and of failing to spot wrongdoing.

Mis-selling on an industrial scale

Qrops allowed you to move your savings abroad while preserving tax advantages.

At the time they were introduced life was getting tougher for financial advisers in the UK. Their profitability had been hit by a crackdown on commission and new rules to protect savers. Many investors were going it alone.

Moving overseas offered a new chance to make money for advisers, particularly in countries with far looser or non-existent regulations, and British expats were key customers.

Initially it looked as though the new-style pensions had been a success. Within ten years 101,700 pensions worth £9.7 billion had been transferred to Qrops, according to HMRC. But slowly the complaints started to come in from savers who were querying exactly where their money had been invested.

Qrops, it would emerge, were used to mis-sell pensions on an industrial scale, and in some cases to facilitate scams, according to a House of Commons work and pensions committee report last year. An investigation by The Sunday Times has found cases of alleged mis-selling involving expats in Spain, France, Greece, Switzerland, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Thailand and Australia.

No such thing as a licence

As the number of complaints grew, some authorities, such as in Thailand, tried to clamp down on advisers. The adviser Neil Robbirt, 60, of the now closed Bangkok-based firm Global Consultants, has faced extradition to Thailand over allegations that he ran an unregulated advice business.

He returned to the UK in 2016 and now lives in Kent. In December a judge at Westminster magistrates’ court denied the extradition order on the grounds that it would breach Robbirt’s human rights because of Thailand’s poor prison standards.

Robbirt’s company was among 11 allegedly unlicensed advisory businesses that targeted expats, according to court reports. One of Robbirt’s clients was Andrew Drummond, 70, a freelance journalist who now lives in Royal Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire.

Drummond met Robbirt while working in Thailand and they became close. He was persuaded to invest in a Qrops and ended up losing tens of thousands of pounds, he claims. His account, now held with RL360, is still incurring charges.

Drummond said: “When the fund went belly up, I did not hear about it from Robbirt but from other victims. When I spoke to him about it and told him I had asked to put my funds in low-risk investments he said, ‘Nowadays there is no such thing as low risk.’

Robbirt denies this and says he tried to help to recover money from the failed investments that he recommended and that he had personally lost £250,000, having had no advance warning of the demise of the relevant fund. He said his firm operated in Thailand for 23 years and that he sought a licence from the Thai regulator, but that he was told no licence was available for providing advice to ex-pats for offshore products.

He said LMIM, the fund manager of the MPF that Drummond had part of his pension in, was licensed by the Australian regulator ASIC. He said RL360 administered the bond that this fund was held in, and they are licensed by the Isle of Man financial Services Authority. He said his firm only dealt with funds in licensed jurisdictions such as Australia and the Isle of Man

Class action over losses

The focus is starting to turn to the investment companies that created products made available through Qrops, many of which have subsidiaries in the UK.

A class action has been launched against Royal Skandia Life Assurance Ltd, now part of Utmost International, and Friends Provident International Limited, now part of RL360, by the London law firm Signature Litigation and Callin Wild, based on the Isle of Man.

The claim is being made on behalf of about 800 British expats who lost between £145 million and £200 million according to written submissions to the Treasury committee. The submissions were made by Niall Coburn from the Australian firm Coburn Corporate Intelligence, on the invitation of the work and pensions select committee as part of its investigation into pension scams in 2020.

The litigation, submitted to the High Court on the Isle of Man in 2020, will have its next hearing tomorrow.

Coburn says in the overview of his written evidence to the committee that the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the regulator, failed in its duty to stop investment companies selling high-risk investments to savers.

RL360 and PPI were approached for comment. Utmost declined to comment.

What now

The FCA said: “We have a huge amount of sympathy for those who have lost money in these failed investments. These offshore investment bonds were offered by life insurance companies regulated by the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority, and were sold to customers in overseas jurisdictions (via overseas advisers). If we uncover evidence of serious poor behaviour by firms we regulated for activities in the UK, we will consider the full range of our powers.”

Drummond’s pension is now £10,000 in the red. RL360 offered to waive the negative balance if he agreed not to pursue any future legal claim. Drummond has refused to do this

Meanwhile, Manita Khuller, who now lives in Chiswick, west London, has been on a crusade to find her money and bring her rogue salesman to justice. We tried to contact him through PPI, but had no response. Bradford’s firm made about £22,400 for securing the transfer of her pension to a Qrops, plus annual commission — a total of £35,000. Khuller says none of this was disclosed to her at the time. She later found out that her pension was held in Guernsey by trustees called FNB International, while her money was invested in Australia and other countries.

After a court case, which Khuller won on appeal, FNB returned the original amount she invested. She is the first person to get back some of their money that was stuck in a Qrops pension.

source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-expat-pensions-that-vanished-9rk8xbfsg