79th Group Insolvency Fraud
A letter to investors in 79th Group was recently sent out on behalf of a few investors who have been taking insolvency action against 79th Group companies.
If you are a 79th Group investor and did not receive it please contact us and we will arrange to have a copy sent to you.
In brief, the letter invited investors to support three separate administration applications filed by three investors. These are administration applications, not winding up petitions. Winding up petitions were also filed by others, but they are now subordinate to the administration applications and will be dismissed.
Two of the winding up petitions were filed by a scam company specialising in attracting victims of fraud and making the investor pay to hand over a debt which actually has a value. It’s a con. We liken this approach to someone putting their car up for sale and when a prospective buyer turns up he’s not interested in buying the car. He wants the car owner to pay him to take the car away ! You wouldn’t do that with your car so why would you do that with your valuable debt ?
Furthermore, assigning your debt to a dodgy company, which doesn’t even have an office, when there is an ongoing Police fraud investigation which may lead to a recovery under the Proceeds Of Crime Act is just plain stupid. Investors are being conned into paying to hand over their rights to receive a distribution from the criminal case. Why would they do that ? It’s them that lost the money, not the company. Once assigned the debt belongs to the company, not the original investor so if / when there is a payout the money goes to the company and doesn’t go to the original investor. It’s a scam.
The letter to investors warned against paying any company at this stage. It is not necessary.
There are some routes investors could explore such as contacting Refundee if the investor paid from a UK bank to a 79th Group UK bank account and it was a GBP to GBP payment. There are other conditions but Refundee will advise on those. Investors don’t have to use a company like Refundee because they can do it themselves, but sometimes relying on a company’s expertise is worth the fee.
The letter also covered contacting Paul Muscutt at Crowell & Moring who is working with a lot of 79th Group investors on the administration applications. Any investor wishing to support their fellow investors should make contact and complete a form confirming their support. An administration is the best option for all investors not just the person who makes the application. They get no special treatment or entitlement.
Investors who have been told there is a viable action against Castle Trust and Management Services Ltd have been lied to. CTMS is in administration with no money and creditor claims of more than £50m against it. There is no chance of recovering anything but pennies from this company and its director.
With regard to T&T Trustees there is currently no evidence of wrongdoing and even if there was the contract makes it very difficult to hold the company liable to compensate investors. Going after the Security Trustees looks tenuous at best so ask for a written legal opinion before paying any company or assigning any debt.
It now appears that several 79th Group noteholder companies are heading into administration which is a good thing. Control of the companies will be taken away from the directors and put in the hands of licensed insolvency practitioners. Investors do not have to pay the insolvency firms and should not be paying any third party companies claiming they can help if investors pay them a fee. They can’t and investors would be wasting their money.
Any 79th Group investor who has paid a fee to an unregulated company should report it to the City Of London Police officers dealing with the case. They can do so via the link which is provided in an earlier article. Here is a LINK to that article. Alternatively, post the details here or drop us a line privately. You can ignore any threat the company might make about keeping all the details confidential. When you’re stealing money from people that’s exactly the kind of clause you’d put in a contract to stop the victim from reporting them. They won’t want their contracts analysed in court.
Please feel free to comment on this article. This is a forum for 79th Group investors to have their say.
Please scroll through our posts below to find previous articles we have written on 79th Group.
Hi.
I’m reaching out to anyone who invested with The 79th Group via a Loan Note.
I went ahead after attending a free event in Spain “Ex Pat Briefings”, whilst I was very doubtful of this initially, I did some re-search & decided to go ahead & invest £100k with a 15% return giving a monthly interest payment. Maturity was June 2025.
I’m devastated by recent events & feel isolated & lost.
I’m hoping there is a forum where I can communicate with other investors to work together to try to secure some return.
Hoping to contact other investors
I have also invested with them, two loan notes. I think it is important that a discussion forum is created on this case, please if anyone know anything please post here. I contacted investments and law, but so far I am not convinced.
Insolvency and Law are charging 6% upfront fee + 24% of what they can recover. A total of 30%. This is more than genuine, very large UK law firms which specialise in prosecuting these kinds of cases would charge.
It is also three times as much as FCA-regulated Claims Management Companies are allowed to charge. They are capped at a maximum of 10%.
Insolvency and Law employs no solicitors and no insolvency practitioners. It has no office premises.
The solicitor representing administrators of some of the loan note companies has told investors that anyone presenting a loan note assignment contract will not be treated as a creditor of the companies unless it can prove that the transfer of ownership was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the investment documentation, is proven by the presenter to be in compliance with the FCA Claims Management Company Regulations, and can prove the assignment was not obtained as a result of false and misleading statements made with the intent to obtain money by deception.
It is hard to see how Insolvency and Law would meet any of those conditions.
On the third point for example, Insolvency and Law wrote to investors 6 weeks after the City Of London Police raided 79th Group amid allegations of it running a Ponzi Scheme, and after its bank account were frozen, stating [in bold type at some points]:
“You currently stand to recover up to 70% of your Loan Note’s value, which is a significantly more favourable outcome compared to 0%, which is the likely result if no action is taken.
To ensure inclusion, we urge you to complete the Assignment Deed and Assignment Notice, and make payment of the 6% Assignment Fee without delay.
This is a time-sensitive and pivotal opportunity”.
They would have been well aware 79th Group was unable to pay any of its debts because its bank accounts were frozen. They would have been aware that there was no chance of 79th Group repaying 100% of an investor’s money (70% net after they’ve deducted their 30%) and they would have been aware that the Police would not allow 79th Group to pay off any individual investors using funds which the Police currently regard as the Proceeds Of Crime. Their attempt to persuade investors to assign their debts is a scam.
Despite their fees being higher than law firms and claims management companies they have even tried to rip off investors based outside the EU. The contract states that the 6% fee and the 24% fee include vat. Investors outside the EU do not have to pay vat. This is a recent change to their contracts because before they used to give the net percentage and charge vat on it where applicable. Insolvency and Law has learnt that if it gives a gross figure it can pocket that extra money without declaring it to the VAT authorities.
There can be no doubt that Insolvency and Law is running a scam on the 79th Group investors.
Investors are reporting that Insolvency and Law is refusing to refund investors’ money. This is not unusual. They often quote spurious legal reasons. Once it has been paid it always makes excuses as to why it will not pay refunds. Victims of the Insolvency and Law scam should report the matter to the Police and the FCA.
Analyst is a member of the Bondreview team.
We have a large group of Loan note holders on WhatsApp. We are actively engaging with solicitors and have a great support system. 120 members and growing. [Contact Details Of Group Withheld Pending Checks]. We will publish the link to the group once we are satisfied it is not a scam.
Also invested in 79th group with maturity 12 May 2025. Obviously not anymore. I have contacted refundee but would love to know what else we can do to recover money and not be scammed again by vultures
We’ve seen an email from Insolvency and Law dated 9th May 2025 attempting to use court judgments to justify the validity of their Deed Of Assignment contracts. They have used this tactic of choosing selected judgements which don’t relate to the specific case because they know investors do not have the legal knowledge to question them. In the 79th Group case they are quoting two judgments, both of which will not stand up to scrutiny in court.
The feedback we are getting is that Quantuma and Kroll will not accept Insolvency and Law as the legal owners of any assigned loan note debts and will be recognising the original owners of the loan notes as the true owners and creditors of the companies. Here is an excerpt from the email sent to investors:
Right to Assign Debt – Despite Non-Assignability Clauses
It is a well-established principle under English law that the right to assign a debt is a proprietary right and, therefore, may not be contractually restricted in the same way as other contractual obligations.
In particular, the courts have held that non-assignment clauses do not necessarily invalidate an assignment of debt—they may render it a breach of contract between the original contracting parties, but they do not automatically make the assignment itself void or ineffective.
Relevant Case Law:
• Chudley v Clydesdale Bank Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 344: The Court of Appeal affirmed that the assignment of a debt is not necessarily prohibited by a non-assignment clause unless the clause clearly and expressly invalidates the assignment itself.
• Brice v Bannister (1878) 3 QBD 569: This case reaffirmed that a debt is a chose in action and can be assigned in equity regardless of contractual restrictions between the original parties.
These cases confirm that loan note holders retain the right to assign their claims, even if the loan note documentation includes a clause purporting to restrict or prohibit assignment.
Well actually, those cases don’t confirm anything like that at all. Insolvency and Law hasn’t even read the judgments it is seeking to rely on. Furthermore, Insolvency and Law has ignored superior judgments which prove the assignments are void and unenforceable. One of these judgments even went as high as the House Of Lords in the UK and completely destroys the Insolvency and Law arguments.
For those who like to plough through legal judgments we refer you to Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Linesta Sludge Disposal Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85; and First Abu Dhabi Bank v BP Oil International Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 14; and R v Chester and N Wales Legal Aid Office, ex p Floods of Queensferry Ltd). You may think we are quite smart quoting these cases but we have to thank some very smart lawyers for this summary.
The lawyers also commented as follows:
The email from insolvency and Law is flawed and misleading in several respects, which is why in my view its arguments must fail:
…we have a House of Lords decision which clearly affirms the opposite position [to that described by Insolvency and Law in its email].
Unless or until the Supreme Court overrules the precedent set by Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Linesta Sludge Disposal Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, Insolvency and Law’s arguments, if not misleading, amount to little more than wishful thinking.
…even if Insolvency and Law are correct and an equitable assignment is viable and effective, they appear to overlook the procedural disadvantages of an equitable assignment. Under an equitable assignment, the assignee must join the assignor as a party to any action to enforce the debt against the obligor. A noteholder might therefore find him- or herself in the position that, having already paid a 6% assignment fee to insolvency and Law, he or she needed to become a party to the recovery proceedings by way of joinder. This would raise the question whether the noteholder could safely rely upon Insolvency and Law to give them a proper indemnity against all costs and charges.
In other words, the investor who signed the Deed Of Assignment would need to be added to any court proceedings. They would be equally liable to pay the opponent’s costs if Insolvency and Law and they were to lose the case. Insolvency and Law won’t care because they’ll just put themselves into administration or liquidation leaving the investor to foot the entire bill. This could easily be £250,000 or more. Nobody knew they were signing up to that.
The purpose of Insolvency and Law sending out their email to investors is to prevent people who have paid them from demanding their money back and to try to fool more investors into signing up. You have to remember that Insolvency and Law Ltd is just a small group of scammers all working from home – Peter Murray, Robert Dene Smith, Britena Clarke and Codie Gage.
The Administrators will not recognise Insolvency and Law as an assignee of any debts. Insolvency and Law Ltd is not a regulated law firm nor a licensed insolvency firm. It cannot therefore take any action which would ever lead to any recovery for investors. It’s a scam.
This may be old news but I see that David Webster resigned from First Class Metals PLC at the end of March. I calculate that 79th Group (not sure which of the 79th companies it was) paid £1.3m to buy shares. The shares are worth £1m today.
First Class Metals must be in shock because if that was ponzi scheme money it’ll have to be repaid. The company’s total value is only £2.4m. 79th Group promised to invest more.
https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/market/1743429333070029600/in-brief-first-class-metals-chair-resigns-further-investment-on-hold
On 16th May 2025 79th Luxury Living Five Ltd (LL5) and 79th Commercial Three Ltd (CM3) were moved from Interim Receivership to Administration. Kroll and Quantuma, the administrators preferred by many investors, were appointed as Joint Administrators.
Earlier this week there was a post by ‘RR’ who said he/she had a whatsapp group of 120 investors and had been in contact with a solicitor. We wrote to RR saying we are not prepared to provide links to any groups unless they could prove they were not a scam. We asked the following questions:
1. Who established the group and please provide proof of them being a 79th Group investor;
2. Who runs the group (if not the founder) and please provide proof;
3. Please provide evidence of engagement with a solicitor on behalf of the group (an email is sufficient) and explain the purpose of the engagement [RR had claimed the group had made contact with a solicitor];
4. Please confirm investors are not, and will not be, required to pay any money for joining the group or contribute towards any ongoing costs related to the group.
We have not yet had a reply.
We have been made aware of whatsapp messages being sent to investors asking them to consent to a Lenders Majority Group (LMG) and to allow two men to represent them. Those men are Martin Richard Cox and Andy Peter Ward. We don’t know these two guys and neither do any of the investors really. They may be genuine investors wanting to do the best for themselves and all other investors, or they may have their own agendas.
It is always risky sending your personal details to people you don’t really know. Some of the 79th Group documents have sections where investors fill in their personal bank account details, their home phone numbers, mobile phone numbers, email addresses etc. Investors need to be very sure they know the people they’re giving their details to are trustworthy.
A Lenders Majority Group is probably a good idea, but there is no need to rush into it. Let the Administrators collect the details of all creditors over the next few months and they will then be able to verify if someone wanting to represent the LMG is genuine or not. Then investors can form a small team to deal with the Administrators. The Administrator would handle that by notifying all investors the names of the people who want to be in that team and a paragraph about them which they have provided. Investors can then vote for the people they prefer.
It has been estimated there are close to 3,000 investors across all the loan note companies and more than £150m has been paid in. Two people making decisions on behalf of hundreds of investors in each loan note company is too few and is open to abuse. Five members for each loan note company is more like the standard number.
We have heard that the Police investigation has been extended to include T&T Trustees Ltd. That is not surprising because it was the Security Trustee and was paid in excess of £4m to secure investors’ money. Even before the involvement of the Police we couldn’t see evidence of any tangible security for investors. The Administrator’s Report for each loan note company will no doubt shed more light on whether any security existed. £4m is a lot of money to be paid over the course of two years. What did they do for that money ? That’s surely going to be at the centre of the Administrators’ and Police questioning.
The fact that T&T is now part of the investigation surely casts doubt over their right to appoint Administrators. There was already a question mark over their links over the two Grant Thornton companies. Does the investigation into T&T’s role now make those appointments untenable ? We would expect those appointments to be challenged.
Finally, investors should not part with any money to pay for any service. There’s nothing anyone can do at this stage despite what they might promise.
Neither should investors sign up to any promised group legal action. There are unscrupulous firms, including law firms, which will try to sign up as many investors as quickly as possible to prevent other, potentially better placed firms, from coming in later once evidence against potential wrongdoers starts to materialise. Investors have at least 18 months to make a decision on who to instruct to represent them if any viable claim becomes apparent. The majority of the claims are likely to be pursued by the Administrators because in a lot of cases the wrongdoing would have been caused against the companies, not the individual investors. It will take at least 18 months before a clear picture emerges. There’s no need to rush in because a mistake made at this stage can be difficult to get out of later on.