www.insightgroupplc.com

www.insightgroupplc.com Morninga, Bio E grass Boiler Room Scam, Do not Invest a penny you will loose all your money Marbella & Cape town Internet

18th of Aug, 2011 by User575388

(Moringa) and (Bio E Grass) is a total SCAM See UK Sunday times August 14th, the company Insight group Plc, is run by a profesional boiler room team located in Marbella Spain. promoting green products mainly sold by selling on the phone by experienced high pressure sales men earning massive comissions, Stealing money from unfortunate investors who are taken in by these sales men. This is a well packedeged operation, which is not FSA regulated, somtimes boiler rooms disguise this fact by using trustees wha are regulated normall some iffy IFA,, which means absouloutly zero when you loose your Invetment they are off the hook, if you Invest with this you will loose eveything, also avoid Carbon Credits, and most other bio investments as this is where all the Boiler Room scammers focus their attentions on currently. M Richards London

Track this Report 273 Comments | Post a Comment

Comments

4517 days ago by Anita Kaur Virk

Hello everyone,

I'm one of Kulvir Singh Virk's daughters (Anita Kaur Virk) and I am 20 years old. Thanks to Aston Lloyd investors and of course my dad's ruthless 'criminal' mind, I've been blessed with a Private education and plenty of money all my life.

I recently just found out that he was confronted at his office a few weeks back by an Aston Lloyd investor. I'm led to believe my dad shut is eyes, wet himself and screamed!

My dad is low life scum and I want him brought to justice for what he's done to everyone.

I have just come across a new blog set up for Aston Lloyd investors to comment: http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/aston-lloyd-took-all-my-money-80-000-along-with-600-hard-working-c79274.html

Bye for now,

Anita

4517 days ago by Martin Lucas

Somebody has got it in for you Vriky!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. Lets all guess how much the turnover will drop for SVS SECURITIES over the next 24 months! You'll be wondering what the fuck has happened!

You had your chance Virk! - and it's time to let the world know about the real you!

This is going to be a very slow burner and there will be repercussions for you and several other professional people - arrogance will be your downfall!

You have made a very silly business decision which I'm sure you will regret!

Kulvir Singh VIRK

Director & Chief Executive of:
FSA Regulated Firm ‘SVS Securities PLC’ (04402606)
21 Wilson Street
London
EC2M 2SN

T: 020 7638 5600
F: 020 7638 5601

www.svssecurities.com
[email protected]

SVS Securities (Kulvir Singh Virk) currently employs the following staff:

Mr Heeran Anil Singh
Mr Benjamin Keith George Tadd
Mr Alan Peter Thomas
Mr Kulvir Virk
Mr Peter Anthony Ward
Mr Robert James Wiegold
Mr Robert Alan Williams
Mr Alexander Christian Brearley
Mr Gareth John Burchell
Mr Ian James Callaway
Mr David Cowley
Mr Jonathan Ellis Critchley
Mr Thomas Luke Curran
Mr Cameron Piers Dickie
Mr Peter Ira Fenichel
Mr Simon Anthony Fox
Mr Ian Ashley Griffiths
Mr Ross Hayden
Mr Alexander Nicholas Benjamin Mattey
Mr Gabor Nagy
Mr Kyriacos Nicola
Mr Andrew David Matthew Paine
Mr Daron Steven Pike
Mr Philip Redvers Pooley
Miss Patricia Reay
Mr William James Russell
Mr Stacy El-Akad Said Saber

Kulvir Singh VIRK Personal FSA Number - KXV01033

SVS Securities FSA Number – 220929

SVS Securities is a member of the London Stock Exchange

Mr Virk controlled functions:

Controlled functions Firm name Start date

CF1 Director - SVS Securities Plc 09/04/2003

CF28 Systems and controls - SVS Securities Plc 28/02/2008

CF3 Chief Executive - SVS Securities Plc 09/04/2003

CF30 Customer - SVS Securities Plc 01/11/2007

New blog arriving for each of your employees very soon!

4517 days ago by NeedHelp123

For anyone that is has ran into this problem please contact me. I found a lawyer who is willing to start a class action lawsuit against these sites. If you have your mugshot on one site, chances are it's on several sites. I too have the same problem. Please contact me so we can start this asap. My contact info is 262-287-5006. email- [email protected]. If you want the lawyer information he has an account on here, but I prefer not to give that out on here. I will give you all the information once I have been contacted. I need around 20 people who would like to join this class action lawsuit. Thank you for your time

4517 days ago by Anita Kaur Virk

NeedHelp123 - you need help!

Dont waste your time lining pockets of Lawyers you dumb-wit!

Bye for now Mr Naive,

Kulvir Singh Virk's daughter (Anita Kaur Virk)

4516 days ago by Tom Cahill

Do not put your money into any class actions. It is a fool's errand. That probably isn't Virk's daughter, but I suspect a Welshman, as per the apparent Joe Calzaghe handle (sorry if it's not *LJ). A lot of people have been very unwise since getting stung, let alone prior to. I have to sympathise, but a lot of them really aren't that bright, but they still need to be warned to stay away from sharks who will try and exploit them at their lowest ebs.

If you want to get things done:

1. Don't trust anyone;
2. Speak to as many people as you can;
3. Write off useless ones ASAP;
4. Let them sink;
5. Do your research;
6. Share research;
7. Do not childishly hold research back - it is not football stickers;
8. Contact the Police in writing (Tony Dobinson of the CoL Fraud Squad was the first to deal with this, but they keep passing it about, which is because they are not your friend, and want to let the little person think they have to put their money into the Post Office or an ISSA, as that's how fascism works. It is criminal to deliberately mislead the public when you're meant to be helping them though.), and make sure you get a stamped copy of any info., or they'll say they lost it, as their life's so hard, and they are trying too hard, and it's "complicated". You can count on that word coming up;
9. Do not rely on government or private regulators;
10. Do demand their help in writing, and follow up, with evidence, and demands that they state their intentions to act, to ignore, or, that it's all fine; and,
11. Don't hold your breath.

Yours,

Tom Cahill
t0mcahill - skype
[email protected]
0207 263 21 08

4516 days ago by Tom Cahill

WELSH SPANNER (aka Hammer) ?

Aston Lloyd : CoLP "Investigation" into : RE10's criminal complicity : Unwilling and willing dupes and ner-do-wells

Hi Gavin,

Thank you for your call. I might be sorry to have caused offense, but I remain undecided, as there are too many questions above your head. Seeing as you're not interested in addressing these issues, and just want to say that I'm out of order, for naming you, even though I didn't, and that you're not going to listen, you're not really going to really instill any sense of confidence in me.

If I were you, I'd focus on the fact that you took on the responsibility of gathering all of the info. together, to present to the Police. You were chosen as you were seen as less able to make the Police move, which is why on both occasions that they were made to act, by me, you were seen first, when I'd made the report, made them accept it, and then later, made them act when your efforts went nowhere.

The Police are good at assessing characteristics, and drives. You have children, as you keep saying, and that's excellent, and whilst I have to subtly object to you trying to gain upperground, or special privilidges, as a result of this, when we're dealing with pen pushers, who're no danger to anyone, especially; the Police know you've got responsibilities, so that's possibly one of the reasons that they used you to compile all of the information, aka, less able to act to disrupt their crooked, self preserving interests. These lot are not normal coppers. The CoLP/SFO type are indoctrinated into un-public service from day one. All Tony Dobinson has to do is lie all day, be friendly and say "fraud's complicated", and he gets paid over £50k. This is all a matter of public record, as the case of Ian Puddick showed. Ian is a top bloke, who would love to hear from you, by the way.

I think you have shown the less intelligent side of your nature once again this morning. It's all me, me, me, with you. You love the whole Gavin L. John Superstar thing too much. You didn't think - when I told you that you were rumoured not to have only submitted evidence regarding your site to the CoLP, in place of all the cross-site/cross Ponzi scheme info. - to tell me what your story was. Yes, you said it was "bollox", but you didn't think far enough through. You said that DIDN'T INTERST YOU.

Take one momnet to ponder this attitude. You wanted to call me, to tell me you had a kid and I'm out of order, as you might be seen in a bad light somehow.

Hopefully you agree with that assessment of what you were interested in tyring to impress on me?

Whilst I told you there's nothign to worry about, and there's certainly not, I bought the serious allegation to your attention. But you didn't want to talk about it.

So Gavin. As you hung up. Please let me know, with your reputation hanging in the balance: If Tony Dobinson didn't take any of your info., as you say, after selecting you to comile it, and with you being responsible on behalf of everyone, why didn't you make sure he did do, or, if you're too useless, why didn't you TELL ME? "Tom, they've counted on my ego and lack of forthought, and think I'm a total mug. They've set me up, just like you told me that they would. What am I going to do? Everyone's going to think I'm an untrustworthy and only out for myself."

You took on the responsibility, and you let everyone down.

And, why did you resign from the creditor's committee, without first letting someone else useful take your place?

Think twice, act once, or not at all if your name's Gavin L. -- but I've got kids mate -- John.

I would like nothing more than to appologise, but you have to think who really ought to be appologising. I think you're little premature ejeculation, was mistimed, and now you're going to have to clean up the mess you've got all over yourself.

Tom Cahill
Everyone knows where you live. You live in Wales.

t0mcahill@hotmail
skype: t0mcahill

4516 days ago by Insight_Team.

Renewable Energies to double by 2020

16 March 2011 - The global wind, solar, and biofuels industries are poised to double within the next 10 years. In this year's "Clean Energy Trends report" Clean Edge has included information comparing where the world was ten years ago to where it is now. The combined global market for solar and wind power is $131.6 billion today, but in the year 2000, it was only worth $6.5 billion. This enormous increase shows a positive shift towards clean energy sources which should be seen as a remarkable achievement.

This latest report has some interesting figures. The current global industry projections, for biofuels, put biofuels at twice its current value, $56.4 billion for 2010 and predict it will grow to $112.8 billion by 2020. It surveys the global wind industry at $60.5 billion for 2010, predicted to grow to $122.9 billion by 2020. The global solar industry is placed at $71.2 billion for 2010, predicted to grow to $113.6 billion by 2020.

The last decade, in the U.S., for example, there were less than 10, 000 hybrid vehicles on the road in 2000 compared with more than 1.4 million hybrid vehicles in 2010. The percentage of U.S. Venture Capital spent on clean technology in 2000 was 1.2 %, compared to over 23% in 2010.

Clean Edge has been tracking data and releasing reports on these and related industries for a decade, and has made some really good predictions. They have only fallen short because some of the company's prior predictions have been more on the conservative side. It was predicted that major alternative energy industries would grow from $7 billion in 2000 to more than $82 billion by 2010. Therefore, the Market has actually exceeded expectations.

Clean Edge also predicted that wind power would grow to more than $49 billion by 2012, and that's already at $60.5 billion for 2010.

According to the report, there are 5 additional key trends that will significantly affect the alternative energy markets in the coming years. Incandescent phase-out lights the way for low-Cost LEDs, natural gas advances as a powerful partner for wind and solar energy, cleaner aviation fuels are poised for take-off, low-cost green building brings relief and sustainability around the world and innovation provides alternatives to rare earths.

Source: http://www.greenerideal.com/alternative-energy/8764-alternative-energy/8683-clean-energy-trends-2011-solar-wind-and-biofuels-markets-grew-35-in-2010

4516 days ago by Insight_Team.

Alfonso Rivera Revilla is a respected Accountant and Lawyer.

Having completed a Bachelor of Economics at Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA; Alfonso embarked on a personal journey in the States where he worked for a leading insurance company as a COBOL programmer (i.e. the programs used globally by governmental and military agencies, in commercial enterprises and on operating systems such as IBM's).

Following this, Alfonso gained nearly twenty years of experience in law and accountancy practices before starting his own firm with partner, Daniel Bresler. The company, Accounting Network SL., is a respected source of information on matters such as:

Accounting
Fiscal Advice
Company Incorporation
Property Conveyancing

In a bid to further add value to the service offered to clients, Alfonso completed a law degree at Universitat Oberta de Catalunya and he is now training to be a Litigator.

Alfonso is also proudly the Chairman of Insight Group PLC:

"In my role at Accounting Network SL, I consider myself to be a problem solver. Someone that works hand-in-hand with my clients to provide the best possible advice whilst always treating people with the upmost respect.

As Chairman of Insight Group PLC. I feel much the same. My priority is to work closely with senior management to ensure our investors are always kept informed and are given every opportunity to reap the rewards of their investment with us."

4516 days ago by Insight_Team.

Insight Group PLC

Insight Group PLC is a leading private investment company based in the thriving city of Cape Town, South Africa.

With offices also located in Mozambique, Gambia and the financial hub of Hong Kong; Insight Group PLC is positioned to provide clients with opportunities and expertise unsurpassed marketplace. read more

Contact one of our experienced Wealth Management Specialists today on 0845 680 8713 or email [email protected] to discuss our green energy investments and opportunities to expand your overseas property portfolio.

4516 days ago by Insight_Team.

Accounting Network
Established in 2000, Accounting Network offers consultancy services for individuals and Companies that require solutions in the accounting, legal and tax fields. Accounting Network advise and represent Insight Group PLC. on all accounting and financial matters.

4516 days ago by Martin Lucas

No. 9473-2006
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK BRIAN BROADBRIDGE and
STEPHEN PETER GRIMES, solicitors
- AND -
IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974
______________________________________________
Mr A H B Holmes (in the chair)
Mrs H Baucher
Mr M G Taylor CBE
Date of Hearing: 12th December 2006
______________________________________________
FINDINGS
of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Constituted under the Solicitors Act 1974
______________________________________________
An application was duly made on behalf of The Law Society by Ian Ryan, a partner in the firm of Bankside Law Solicitors, Thames House, 58 Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 0AS, on 11th May 2006 that Frederick Brian Broadbridge, solicitor, and Stephen Peter Grimes, solicitor, both of 110 Morden Road, South Wimbledon, London, SW19 3BP, might be required to answer the allegations contained in the statement which accompanied the application and that such order might be made as the Tribunal should think fit.
The allegations were that the Respondents had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor in each of the following particulars, namely that:-
(i) They failed to keep accounts properly written up for the purposes of Rule 23 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 (the 1998 Rules);
(ii) They failed to carry out reconciliations as required by Rule 32(7) of the 1998 Rules;
(iii) They allowed clients’ accounts to be overdrawn in breach of Rule 22(5) of the 1998 Rules;
2
(iv) They improperly utilised clients’ monies for the purposes of other clients;
(v) They withdrew money from client account for costs in breach of Rule 19 note (x) of the 1998 Rules;
(vi) They improperly operated a suspense account in breach of Rule 32(16) of the 1998 Rules;
(vii) They failed to act in the best interests of clients by failing to return outstanding balances on client account within a reasonable period.
The application was heard at the Court Room, 3rd Floor, Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London, EC4M 7NS, on 12th December 2006 when Ian Ryan appeared as the Applicant and both Respondents were represented by George Marriot, solicitor and partner in the firm of Gorvins Solicitors, 4 Davy Avenue, Knowlhill, Milton Keynes, MK5 8NL.
The evidence before the Tribunal included the admissions of the Respondents.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal made the following Orders:-
The Tribunal Orders that the Respondent Frederick Brian Broadbridge of 110 Morden Road, South Wimbledon, London, SW19 3BP, solicitor, do pay a fine of £2, 500, such penalty to be forfeit to Her Majesty the Queen, and it further Orders that he do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £14, 000.
The Tribunal Orders that the Respondent Stephen Peter Grimes of 110 Morden Road, South Wimbledon, London, SW19 3BP, solicitor, do pay a fine of £2, 500, such penalty to be forfeit to Her Majesty the Queen, and it further Orders that he do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £14, 000.
The facts are set out in paragraphs 1 to 23 hereunder:-
1. Mr Broadbridge, born in 1952, was admitted as a solicitor in 1980. His name remained on the Roll of Solicitors. Mr Grimes, born in 1959, was admitted as a solicitor in 1985. His name remained on the Roll of Solicitors.
2. At all material times the Respondents carried on practice together in partnership under the style of Broadbridge Grimes Solicitors at South Wimbledon, London.
3. Following notice duly given to the Respondents a Forensic Investigation Officer of The Law Society commenced an inspection of the Respondents’ books of account on 25th October 2004. The Forensic Investigation Officer (the FIO) prepared a Report dated 16th May 2005 that was before the Tribunal.
4. The FIO’s Report revealed that the Respondents’ firm’s books of account were not in compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 and that there were a number of fundamental breaches of those rules. In particular:-
3
Client ledger accounts had been overdrawn;
The books of account contained misleading entries;
The books of account were not up to date and client account reconciliations were not produced at least every five weeks;
Round sum withdrawals on account of costs had been made;
Permission to make withdrawals from the client account on account of costs was granted to an unauthorised individual; and
Suspense accounts had been used inappropriately.
5. In view of the breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules it was not practicable for the FIO to express an opinion as to whether or not funds held on client bank accounts were sufficient to meet the firm’s liability to clients as at 31st August 2004. He established that a cash shortage of £12, 693.92 existed at that date.
6. The cash shortage arose due to overpayments made on behalf of the following clients:-
Client Account Amount
(i) G & K 4753 £4, 777.80
(ii) F 4174 1, 920.00
(iii) J & H 4044 2, 214.55
(iv) J & H 4651 1, 278.71
(v) L 4112 1, 901.00
(vi) P 4354 601.86
£12, 693.92
7. With regard to item (i) above, Mr Grimes acted for himself and Ms K in the purchase of property at a purchase price of £345, 000. Completion took place on 23rd July 2004. Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) of £10, 350 was paid on 27th August 2004. Sufficient funds were not available to the credit of Mr Grimes and Ms K to cover the payment for SDLT and consequently their client ledger was overdrawn by £4, 777.80.
8. Mr Grimes and Ms K’s client ledger recorded a lodgement dated 17th August 2004 described as “FROM CLIENT” of £5, 000 so that the relevant client ledger had a credit balance of £222.20. This was a false entry in the accounting records. It was in fact a client to client transfer and not a lodgement. The corresponding entry was a debit to the client ledger of Mr D, who had lodged £5, 000 with the firm for a deposit in the purchase of a property. There was no connection between Mr D’s matter and that of Mr Grimes and Ms K. The Respondents in a letter addressed to The Law Society dated 21st February 2005 had stated that the entry was made “in order to adjust client debit balances on the accounts”. When interviewed on 14th April 2005, the Respondents said that they had not authorised the client to client transfer and could not provide an explanation as to how it occurred.
4
9. The original client ledger computer printouts were dated 31st August 2004 but the false entries no longer appeared in printouts of the same ledgers dated 31st October 2004. The Respondents explained that this occurred because the firm’s August 2004 financial transactions had to be re-entered into the accounting system because of the loss of data and the unauthorised transactions had not been re-entered into the system.
10. With regard to item (ii), the firm was instructed to act for Mr F in the purchase of a property at a purchase price of £195, 500. Completion took place on 14th May 2004. Two SDLT payments were made, both in the sum of £1, 960, in respect of the freehold and the leasehold titles. Sufficient funds were not available in Mr F’s account to cover the second SDLT payment and consequently his client ledger became overdrawn by £1, 920.
11. Mr F’s client ledger showed a lodgement dated 1st August 2004 described as “INLAND REVENUE” of £1, 960, leaving a credit balance of £40. This was a false entry in the accounting records as this was in fact a client to client transfer. The corresponding entry was a debit to the client ledger of Mr I. Mr I’s client ledger showed that funds were held on account for the payment of SDLT and Land Registry fees in connection with his own property purchase. There was no connection between Mr F’s matter and that of Mr I.
12. In their letter addressed to The Law Society dated 21st February 2005 the Respondents gave the same explanation as in the previous matter and also when interviewed on 14th April 2005 said that they had not authorised the client to client transfer of £1, 960.
13. At the commencement of the FIO’s inspection the firm had just completed the 30th August 2004 reconciliation and had not entered into the computer system any September or October 2004 financial transactions. Subsequent FIO visits to the firm made in December 2004 revealed that the October 2004 financial transactions had still to be entered into the accounting system.
14. The Respondents asserted that the books of account were not up to date due to the volume of transactions and the fact that the firm’s bookkeeper, Mr D, worked only part-time. They had recently hired another individual so that bookkeeping duties were covered five days a week. The Respondents also mentioned that they had lost some accounting data in March and August 2004 which put them behind.
15. The Respondents said that the firm’s accounts were now up to date and, as at 14th April 2005, the reconciliation for March 2005 had been completed.
16. The FIO ascertained that funds were withdrawn from client account on account of costs by round sum transfers to office account.
17. Between 1st July 2004 and 31st August 2004 11 such transfers in amounts ranging from £3, 250 to £28, 650 and totalling £169, 750 had been made. The books recorded 21 transfers of specific amounts totalling £174, 611.89. The overall position ranged from an overpayment of £100, 525 to an underpayment of £4, 861.89.
5
18. Mr Grimes indicated that round sums for costs were transferred from the client to the office bank account because the accounts were behind and it had been necessary to “estimate the transfers from client to office”. Mr Broadbridge said that if the books were not up to date he gave Mr D the authority to transfer from the client bank account to the office bank account an amount that was an estimate of costs due to the firm. Mr Broadbridge said that the postings for the bills shown in August 2004 were probably inadequate in that they should have been spread over July and August. The practice of estimating costs started in April 2004 when they lost the March 2004 data and continued until January 2005 at which time the books of account had been brought up to date.
19. Mr Broadbridge said that he could not guarantee that a shortage on the client account had not occurred when costs transfers were being estimated.
20. The firm maintained two suspense ledgers on the client account entitled “Errors & Adjustment” and “Unidentified Items” both of which contained a number of transactions.
21. Mr Broadbridge said that he believed the reason so many entries existed on the suspense ledger accounts was because Mr D had, for reasons unknown, abandoned the matter file numbering system, causing confusion when matching financial transactions to the relevant client ledger account. Mr Broadbridge acknowledged that the firm’s suspense ledgers in the client account should not have been used so indiscriminately, adding that he hoped that the use of these ledgers would be greatly diminished since Mr D had reverted back to using the former file numbering system.
22. The firm’s list of client balances contained approximately 3, 000 client matters. A sample of 26 client ledgers was reviewed which showed that sums remained in the clients’ accounts from one year to over four years. A balance of £99.63 representing a refund from a client’s mortgagee remained dormant for over three years in the client ledger. An overpayment in respect of Land Registry fees of £100 remained on the client ledger account which had been dormant for over three years.
23. The Respondents acknowledged that many of the 3, 000 client matters shown in the list of client balances were dormant. They said that they were working on clearing the balances and returning the funds to the clients.
The Submissions of the Applicant
24. The Applicant noted that the Respondents admitted the allegations. He had not, and did not, put those allegations as matters involving dishonesty.
25. It was noteworthy that explanations given by the Respondents to The Law Society had been inaccurate and the explanations which the Respondents currently placed before the Tribunal were somewhat different.
The Findings of the Tribunal
26. The Tribunal found all of the allegations to have been substantiated. Indeed, they were not contested.
6
The Mitigation of the Respondents
27. The Respondents admitted the allegations.
28. Neither Respondent had faced proceedings before the Tribunal on any previous occasion.
29. The Respondents practised from offices in Wimbledon and Earlsfield, each Respondent being resident at each office. They had been partners since June 1988. They ran a predominantly conveyancing practice. That was a competitive market and, in order to make a modest profit, very long hours and a substantial throughput of cases was required.
30. The Respondents were entirely cooperative with The Law Society and during the course of the FIO’s inspection and interview they gave prompt and full written responses to The Law Society.
31. The root of the Respondents’ problems lay in their accounts department and a failure in the software of their accounts package. The Respondents recognised their responsibility under the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, but invited the Tribunal to take into account a number of mitigating factors.
32. In March 2004 the firm suffered an accounting hardware and software failure. The result of this was that the whole of the March 2004 postings were lost or badly corrupted so that the March entries needed to be re-posted. Up to that point the firm’s accounts were up to date. Mr D had to re-post the lost data. There was a high volume of conveyancing transactions and because of this the accounts fell behind. This was made worse by the fact that Mr D then only worked part time. Once they realised the seriousness of the loss of data the Respondents brought in contract bookkeepers to assist. By March 2005 the accounts had been brought up to date. By the time the firm underwent a second inspection by The Law Society in September 2006 the accounts were up to date.
33. The Respondents’ accounts department now had sufficient resources to ensure that the required reconciliations were carried out.
34. The Respondents had, after investigating the options open to them, selected a new accounting system.
35. Where the accounts were not properly written up it inevitably followed that reconciliations could not be undertaken on time. They were carried out at a later date or dates.
36. Out of a misguided sense of loyalty to the Respondents, Mr D took on too much work and indicated he had sufficient resources when clearly that was not the case. The Respondents had accepted what he said. The Respondents apologised for that, and had made sure Mr D was more regularly accountable to them. The Respondents had taken a more proactive role in the work that he was doing and had ensured that sufficient resources were deployed in the accounting exercise.
7
37. Overdrawings on client account were the direct result of the overstretched accounts department.
38. No client had suffered any loss. By the conclusion of the FIO’s inspection, the cash shortage and the use of clients’ money for other clients had been corrected.
39. Reference had been made to “false” entries. This related to backdated entries and this was of particular concern where the backdated entry involved Mr Grimes and his domestic partner, Ms K. The transaction had been conducted by a fee earner employed by the firm. What occurred was never intended by the Respondents. It would in any event have amounted to a very crude and obvious attempt at backdating and would have been immediately obvious by reason of the date order to anyone inspecting the relevant client ledger.
40. The explanation was originally provided by the partners in their letter to The Law Society dated 22nd July 2005. Further a letter from the software house, who were responsible for the maintenance of the accounts package, dated 20th July 2005 was provided.
41. The Respondents sought further information from the accounts package company whose letter of 24th October 2006 was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was invited to note the strange effects which could result from a corrupted system, and in particular that because the bookkeeper “had not kept a backup of his data he was obliged to start reposting from a known good start”.
42. The bookkeeper kept daily backups on a floppy disk but a hardware or software failure during the backup procedure caused the catastrophic corruption of the accounts which also resulted in the loss of the disk and information with it. The bookkeeper was obliged to start re-posting from a “known good start” and that explains why, when The Law Society subsequently looked at the ledger again, the entry which had appeared previously had disappeared. In simple terms, Mr D could not rely on the data, and in those circumstances he re-posted all the entries. That was consistent with the shortage on Mr Grimes’s and Ms F’s client account being replaced on 30th March 2005. It also explained and put into perspective the FIO’s assertion that the £5, 000 came from Mr Grimes because, as the FIO correctly stated, it was not a payment from the client: it was a transfer from one unrelated client to Mr Grimes and Ms K.
43. The use of round sum transfers came about owing to the pressure of work, an overstretched accounts department and the corrupted software. Because of the corruption of the data, which occurred twice in 2004, the accounts department became so behind in making proper transfers in respect of costs from client account to office account that the firm would have become insolvent had the transfers not been made. Mr. D. had been provided with actual bills which had been delivered and he counted them up and based the transfers on those delivered bills so that the sums transferred were reasonably accurate. The volume of actual transfers proved to be under the figure which it was established was due to the firm.
44. The FIO expressed concern about the Respondents’ use of suspense accounts. In principle suspense accounts were allowed, but they can only be used when the
8
solicitor can justify their use; for example temporarily to record the receipt of an unidentified payment where time is needed to establish the nature of the payment or the identity of the client. It was accepted that the Respondents maintained two suspense ledgers for client account, and both contained a number of transactions. The Respondents had been horrified to discover this because it appeared that Mr D had, for unknown reasons, abandoned the file matter-numbering system. This meant that there were an increasingly large number of unidentified items posted to the suspense account. Mr D had subsequently been instructed to revert to the use of the former file numbering system and this had greatly reduced the number of transactions recorded on a suspense account.
45. Further procedures had been put in place whereby if after a limited period of time monies received could not be allocated to a client, they were where possible returned to the sender. The Respondents monitored the use of the suspense account, and were satisfied that its use could be justified.
46. Further resources had been employed to return the dormant balances on client account to clients with the result that, although there were still some dormant balances, they had been greatly reduced over the last year. The Respondents’ aspiration was to have zero small dormant balances but it was inevitably the case with a substantial conveyancing practice that in certain cases retentions had to be made and retained. There had been a failure to make transfers from client account to office account of small disbursements incurred by the firm.
47. There had been no further corruptions of the accounts software in 2005 or 2006. The Respondents recognised that the accounting system they had been using was quite old, and steps had been taken to replace it. The Respondents would shortly order the new system. Contract bookkeepers would be employed to assist Mr D in introducing the new system.
48. When the accounts problems came to light, the Respondents took the matter very seriously and engaged their accountants to ensure that the requisite degree of supervision was given to the accounts team, and to ensure that the accounts team was sufficiently resourced. The Respondents recognised that ultimately the responsibility for the accounts department was theirs. The extra cost in employing their accountants and bookkeeping support had been considerable. The Tribunal was invited to pay due regard to the efforts of the Respondents in correcting their earlier failures and ensuring that they would not recur. The Respondents had learnt a sad and salutary lesson after enjoying a hitherto unblemished career.
49. The Respondents accepted that they must pay the Applicant’s costs and they agreed the level of these costs at £14, 000 inclusive.
The Decision of the Tribunal and its Reasons
50. The Tribunal was deeply concerned about the situation that prevailed in the Respondents’ accounts department. There had been grave breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules. It was incumbent upon solicitors punctiliously to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Rules which are in place for the protection of clients’ money. The Tribunal cannot let it go unremarked that the Respondents gave a written
9
explanation to The Law Society which was not accurate. The Tribunal accepted the Respondents’ explanation that they had relied upon an explanation given to them by their trusted bookkeeper and had made what they believed to be a correct interpretation of his explanation to The Law Society. It had transpired that their reliance was misplaced and they had before the Tribunal given a detailed explanation which was supported by a letter from their suppliers of information technology. The Tribunal has given the Respondents credit for their admissions and the fact that matters had been put right. There had been no deliberate misuse of clients’ money and no client had suffered loss. The Tribunal would have considered the matters before them to have been at the serious end of the scale if a full explanation had not been given.
51. In all the circumstances of this case the Tribunal concluded that financial sanctions should be imposed upon the Respondents, who were equally liable for what had happened. The Tribunal ordered that each of the Respondents pay a fine of £2, 500 and further ordered the Respondents to pay the costs of and incidental to the application and enquiry, to include the costs of The Law Society’s FIO. The Respondents had agreed the level of the costs with the Applicant and the Tribunal ordered that the Respondents be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the Applicant’s costs in the agreed fixed sum.
Dated this 8th day of March 2007
On behalf of the Tribunal
A H B Holmes
Chairman

4516 days ago by Martin Lucas

Regulate Finance
for Development
The Vultures
of Land Grabbing
The involvement of European financial companies
in large-scale land acquisition abroad
Campagna per
la riforma della
Banca Mondiale
“Governments and investment funds are buying up farmland in
Africa and Asia to grow food – a profitable business, with a growing
global population and rapidly rising prices. The high-stakes game of
real-life Monopoly is leading to a modern colonialism to which many
poor countries submit out of necessity.”
(Der Spiegel, 30 July 2009)
The Vultures of Land Grabbing
This publication has been produced as part of a project
of six European NGOs (BWP, CRBM, CCFD, EURODAD,
GLOPOLIS and WEED) on raising awareness about the
creation a global financial system fit for development.
As of now, the EU is hardly present as a regulatory actor
but there are proposals for its role to grow substantially.
The project wants to contribute to a more coherent and
common political approach for financial regulation and
supervision inside the EU and for common positions in
international processes of reform, such as G20, IMF, FSB
and the UN.
For more information, please go to:
www.regulatefinancefordevelopment.org
The report has been written by Merian Research and
CRBM.
Graphic design and layout: Carlo Dojmi di Delupis
This publication has been produced with
the financial assistance of the European
Union. The contents of this document
are the sole responsibility of the authors
and can under no circumstances be
regarded as reflecting the position of the
European Union.
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 3
Private equity is no longer a small
business. After having experienced their
largest boom between 2005 and 2007,
private equity funds under management
totalled $2.5 trillion at the end of 2008
(with a 15% increase compared to
2007, despite the financial turmoil). IFSL
(International Financial Services London)
forecasts that funds under management
will increase to over $3.5 trillion dollars
by 2015, starting from less than 1 trillion
in 2003 1.
With many big private equity firms joining hands and
owning a large number of businesses across the world, a
new type of corporate conglomerate is emerging which is
reshaping the way business is being conducted. Because
of the dramatic rise of private equity firms in the past few
years some people would crown them as the “new kings
of global capitalism” while some others would label them
as “locusts”, depending on the political perspectives. 2
In particular, several actors raised strong
concerns about the labour, social
and development impacts associated
to private equity funds’ operations.
Trade unions warned against massive
lay-offs consequent to take overs
and the restructuring of companies
carried out by these financial actors in
a highly speculative way 3. International
institutions, such as UNCTAD, raised
concerns about the negative long-term
development impacts associated to this
kind of foreign direct investment, which
1 IFSL Research, 2009, Private Equity 2009, August
2 SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, 2005, Programmheft I.
Tradition und Fortschritt, January
3 Where the house always wins: Private Equity, Hedge Fund and the
New Casino Capitalism; International Trade Union Confederation; ITUC
Reports; June 2007; Brussels
remains highly untransparent. 4 In short, private equity
funds not only have a speculative business model, but
also represent a conveyor belt for shareholder capitalism
from the financial to the real economy. 5
The financial crisis and the slow recovery of credit markets
have slowed down the private equity business, at least in
aggregated terms. The reduced leverage capacity – due
to the lack of easy access to credit from major private
commercial and investment banks – has necessarily
reduced buy outs and acquisitions. However, wealth
accumulation has continued, even more in the crisis, and
major fund managers have promptly started scoping for
new markets where to allocate resources. In particular,
since the financial crisis started to spread around the
world in 2007, there has been a constant
shift from financial assets and real
estate – considered too risky and always
less profitable – to other assets, mainly
commodities.
As a matter of fact, the investment
managers are well known for their
creativity to adapt to changing market
situations by starting investment vehicles
in order to leverage their profits in any
possible way. With statistics predicting
an impressive growth of the world
population (9.1 billion by 2050), a rapidly increasing
GDP in some big emerging countries and the need
for new energy sources, the financial speculation in
4 United nations conference on Trade and Development, World Investment
Report 2009, Geneva, July 2009
5 Superstars in the Emperor’s New Clothes. Hedge Funds and Private
Equity Funds. What is at Stake?; Peter Wahl; WEED-Briefing Paper,
Berlin, 2008
The Vultures
of Land Grabbing
Because of the dramatic
rise of private equity
firms in the past few
years some people
would crown them
as the “new kings of
global capitalism” while
some others would
label them as “locusts”
4 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
further legitimise practices by foreign harmful investors
for local farmers and agriculture companies.
Despite mounting concern publicly raised by civil society
about the growing phenomenon of land grabbing, very
little attention has been drawn so far to the specific role
of private equity funds – in particular to who is putting
wealth into these controversial financial entities, who
runs them and how. Not surpraisingly most of the private
equity funds aggressively involved in land grabbing are
related to US financial markets and to American major
investment banks. However, European financial players
haven’t just watched these developments silently and
have become actors in the field of land grabbing too.
The issue of regulating the existence and functioning
of highly leverage institutions, such as private equity
funds and hedge funds, in order to limit the impacts
of these on the real economy and ordinary people’s
life has not emerged so far in the wider debate within
European institutions in the context of the proposal for
legislation on Alternative Investment Fund Managers.
The regulation is primarily centered on some capital
requirements and obligations for fund managers than on
the funds themselves and the scope of their action. Such
an approach falls far short of the well recognised urgency
to put clear and binding contraints to the operations of
these financial actors, in particular as far as the sectors
of “soft commodities” and “land” are concerned, which
form the basis of the life of billions of people worldwide,
in particular in the Global South.
In short the limited focus on financial stability and
increased transparency included in proposals so far
agricultural (soft) commodities and energy crops - used
to produce food and biofuels - has rapidly been seen
as a new opportunity to make huge returns betting on
people’s basic needs. In this context land has become a
key asset to control and invest in, in order to engineer
further financial products and profits. In the last five years
Agricultural Funds buying or leasing land in Africa, Latin
America, East Europe or Russia in order to produce the
urgently needed crops, trade cereals or breed cattle, have
started to spread around the most important financial
capitals.
“Land grabs” have not gone unnoticed—they have
produced widespread media coverage and concern from
civil society, researchers, and environmentalists, who fear
that private land investments will increase monoculturebased,
export-oriented agriculture, arguably jeopardizing
international food security. 6 United Nations agencies and
governments have raised concern as well. The Director-
General of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
Jacques Diouf, expressed apprehension over the potential
effects of swift land deals on political stability in “host”
countries 7, while European Union officials have stated
that some land deals are exploiting poor nations. 8
At the same time international financial institutions have
shown a strong interest in this new phenomenon and
particularly the IFC of the World Bank Group has been
playing a key role in fostering foreign investment in
agriculture and land management in the Global South.
The World Bank aims at making land investment by
foreign investors a win-win situation for helping unsecure
host nations access food resources as well as agricultural
investment and employment. While facing local
communities and civil society concerns 9, the Bank has
been promoting voluntary codes of conduct to minimise
short- and long-term impacts. Nevertheless the codes’
effectiveness remains questionable because they risk to
6 The Great Land Grab. Rush for world’s farmland threatens food
security for the poor; The Oak Institute; Shepard Daniel and Anuradha
Mittal; 2009
7 Coker, M. “UN Chief Warns on Buying Farms.” The Wall Street
Journal. September 10, 2008
8 Bate, F. “Farmland buying may harm poor states--EU official.” Reuters.
June 3, 2009
9 STOP LAND GRABBING NOW!! Say NO to the principles of “responsible”
agro-enterprise investment promoted by the World Bank;
Statement by La Via Campesina, FIAN, Land Research Action Network,
GRAIN; April 2010
What is Private Equity (PE)? 1
Private equity is a broad term used to define any
type of equity investment in an asset or a company
that is not listed on a public stock exchange.
Therefore, the purchase of shares in a company
is privately negotiated. The shares of a company
could be acquired through the sale of existing
shares by shareholders or private placement of
new shares. Private equity covers a wide range of
investment opportunities, including early stage
investment (angel investors), take off (venture
capital), mid-growth investment (mezzanine
finance), later stage (private equity), distressed debt
financing and others. Private equity encompasses
a wide spectrum of investment vehicles from
angel to leveraged buyouts. Because of heavy
dependence on leveraged buyout to raise money, a
private equity fund and a buyout fund have almost
become interchangeable in the US and Europe.
1 A discussion Paper on Private Equity with Special Reference
to India; Kavaljit Singh for The Corner House; October 2007
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 5
mentioned above,
big banks prefer
to profit by trading
commodities in
derivative markets
and investing
in stock listed
companies through
mutual or hedge
funds. Just a few
cases involve big
banking groups.
For example Dutch
Rabobank Group’s
Rabo Farm Europe
Fund which is
a private equity
fund, whose sector
breakdown is given
as rural resources
like land and related
assets (such as water resources). The case of Rabobank
is quite intriguing, as the bank is known as a cooperative
bank, being committed to Food and Agri financing, it has
grown remarkably during the last years and doesn’t get
tired of reminding clients where it is coming from and
how sustainable its investments are (including human
rights protection) 11. We found Rabobank Group is also as
co-founder (together with the Swiss Sarasin Bank, whose
major shareholder is Rabobank) of AgriSar Fund, a mutual
fund which has the “monetisation of water” as one of its
long term investment targets. As Sarasin is recognized as
European pioneer in socially responsible investments, the
question remains how the AgriSar Fund is consistent with
the SRI strategies of Sarasin, but also of Rabobank.
At this point we would like to underline that private
equity funds are certainly private but, since their influence
and scale has grown so strong in the last years and since
they are increasingly investing in public goods, their
investment portfolio can’t remain secretive (as it is):
companies setting up private equity funds should start
to commit themselves to more transparency. A greater
degree of disclosure would be the first step towards a
more controllable and restricted use of these financial
vehicles.
11 http://www.banktrack.org/show/bankprofiles/rabobank
advanced in order to strengthen financial regulation at
national and international level will not prevent private
equity funds from investing more and more in land
grabbing in the near future with severe impacts on local
communities and development processes.
Giving private equity a face
GRAIN, one of the pioneers in researching these issues
and tackling the funds taking part in this new real life
monopoly has published several researches listing the
names of funds actively taking part in the game. 10
On request of CRBM, Merian Research picked out a large
number of European cases in GRAIN’s list, in order to
study who are the investors in these funds. Our aim has
been to give the investors a name and a face. By doing
this we have found further controversies underlining
the emergency of acting soon in order to stop the most
controversial land grabbing. Focusing on our research,
we quickly learned about the necessity to differ between
a tremendous variety of cases. We had to distinguish
between cases stretching over the whole portfolio
of bank’s and investment manager’s products: from
hedge funds, investing in publicly traded companies or
agricultural commodities – such as the Deutsche Bank’s
PowerShares DB Agriculture Fund – over REIT’s (Real
Estate Investment Trusts) to private equity funds investing
in non-listed companies, which directly buy or lease land.
This research focused mainly on the latter, namely
private equity funds that are taking control over vast
amounts of land. The funds are mainly registered in the
United Kingdom, but some of them also in offshore tax
havens like the Cayman Islands, Channel Islands or British
Virgin Islands. A practice which is hard to stop despite
commitments taken by G20 governments and the OECD
in the last year.
Big banks = big players?
Who are the investors in these funds? Who is backing
the private equity companies deciding to raise agricultural
funds? These have been two of the main questions of the
research. First and foremost it has to be underlined that
the number of big banking groups directly involved in
these businesses remained unexpectedly low. As already
10 Seized! The 2008 land grabbers for food and financial security; Grain
Breifings; October 2008
What is land
grabbing?1
Land grabbing is defined as land
loss by rural populations due to
large-scale land acquisition by
foreign business (be it by purchase,
lease of other forms of control over
land such as long-term contract
farming) for industrial agricultural
production (be it for food, agrofuels
or other agricultural commodities).
Many acquisitions involve more
than 10, 000 hectares and several
more than 500, 000 hectares.
1 Foreign land grabbing in Africa. 2009
Monitoring report by European Civil Society
Organizations of European Commission’s
proposal for Advancing African Agriculture
(AAA); FIAN and others, 2010
6 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
Another good example is the hedge fund operator QVT
Financial, set up by former Deutsche Bank golden boy
Dan Gold. QVT invests - through a number of hedge
funds based in the Cayman Islands - in at least two
private equity funds involved in land grabbing: the
Bulgarian Elana Agricultural Land Opportunity Fund and
Clean Energy Brazil PLC, based in Douglas (Isle of Man).
According to the Wall Street Journal, “QVT Financial LP,
an $8.5 billion firm, has been involved in some of the
messier bankruptcies of the past several years, including
those of Refco Inc. and Dana Holding Corp. (DAN)”.
Greenwashing
A surprising number of financial vehicles involved in land
grabbing boast a commitment to sustainability, socially
responsible investing and ethical financing. Sometimes
they refer to alleged partnerships with renowned
international NGO’s or environmental groups.
The case of Sterling Knight Consultants Ltd, London
is particularly interesting. The company seems to be
connected to Emerald Knight “Ethical Investments” and
Silva Tree Panama SA, a firm that presents itself as “an
environmental project developer with humanitarian,
biodiversity and environmental benefits”. Neither Emerald
Knight nor Silva Tree are known to be members of
European social investments forums or environmental
coalitions.
Key findings and conclusions
After speculating in IT companies and real state, an
increasing number of financial investors are seeking new
opportunities in the agricultural sector: leasing and buying
land, producing and trading cereals, fruits and vegetables,
breeding cattle or refining biofuels from energy crops.
The drivers for speculation in agricultural (soft)
commodities are the growth of world population, the
rapidly increasing GDP in some big emerging countries
and the need for new energy sources. Commodity
markets have also proved to be highly volatile in the
recent years, a condition which definitely attracts
speculators.
A new wave of investments in the agricultural sector
occurred between 2006 and 2008, though many projects
have been stopped or suspended because of the financial
crisis and are supposedly due to be launched again in the
coming months.
Scanning the examined cases of involved banks, another
fund stands out in the list: the Altima One World
Agriculture Development Fund (AOWADF) registered in
offshore tax haven Cayman Islands. One of AOWADF’s
investors is no less a figure than the World Bank, through
its private sector lender International Finance Corporation.
The Golden Boys of land
grabbing
The pioneer phase of Private Equities raising money
for their agricultural funds and investing in land may
be marked starting from 2005/2006 until 2008/2009.
It seems that the first dirty phase of the land rush has
been managed by small investment vehicles, set up by
former golden boys, who were previously employed
by the big banking groups or, on the other hand, by
senior corporate raiders, and in some cases by obscure
fraudsters: a limited group of skilled and greedy managers
who have set up a web of offshore companies to get into
Southern markets and operate in secrecy to their exclusive
advantage. To a certain extent the financial crisis itself has
been a driver for trying these new risky adventures.
In particular we found more than just a handful of former
investment managers in institutions such as JP Morgan
Chase, Société Générale, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey,
Merrill Lynch, acting as wirepullers in launching their
private equity funds in order to grab land in Africa, South
America, Eastern Europe or Russia. A variety of interesting
cases may be found when going through the profiles of
this report
For example the Brazilian Farmland Fund, set up by
Bramdean Asset Mangement, a company created by
Great Britain’s so-called “superwoman” Nicola Horlick,
a celebrated investment manager, who started her
career in the French group Société Générale. Another
case is the investor Tilney Investment Management
(which is the trading name for Deutsche Bank Wealth
Management!), Horlick convinced no less than the Iranian
billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz to invest into Bramdean’s
fund. Tchenguiz, who is described by the press as a “bad
boy investor” and “gambler”, put a total amount of 38
million GBP into the Brazilian Farmland Fund and got mad
about it just last year, when Nicola Horlick announced to
have lost 21 million GBP in American fraudster Bernhard
Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 7
Directive on Alternative
Investment Fund Managers
(AIFMs) 12
The Directive on AIFMs is focused on hedge funds, private
equity funds, commodity funds, real estate funds and
infrastructure funds, which are all institutional investors
who play an important role in the speculative financial
system. They form the vanguard of high-risk institutional
speculators, using highly risky business models such as
leverage and (naked) short selling.
The European Commission concentrated on transparency
and reporting, which is a necessary step, but the proposed
text has many loopholes and - in our opinion - the main
risks are not dealt with. Consequently, the funds would
be able to continue - with minimum restrictions - to
develop their business model as before:
• The first important loophole is that the directive
only applies to fund managers but not the funds
themselves;
• Funds with less than 100 million assets under
management are not regulated at all. Bigger funds
can easily take advantage of this by splitting up into
smaller sub-funds;
• Funds that do not use leverage are allowed to have
500 million under management without falling under
the directive;
• Funds, which use leverage to a large extent should
meet special requirements. What is meant by
considerable leverage or by special requirements is
yet to be defined;
• For funds which use leverage, a limit on the maximum
leverage shall be fixed, but as the funds can manage
the leverage “dynamically” it is unclear where this
limit is;
• The effective capital requirements are under 5%;
• Funds which speculate with shares of small and
medium enterprises are exempt from the directive;
• Naked short selling is not banned, and it is only
required to be documented in an annual report.
After a long negotiation between the European Council
and the European Parliament the text has been approved
with minor improvements, thus awarding financial lobbies
for their systemic action on decision-makers in the last
years.
12 Compiled from The Stress Test for Global Financial Governance;
WEED and others (Regulate finance for development); March 2010
Investments in land, food commodities and biofuel are
increasingly managed by a wide variety of financial
structures: private equity funds, hedge funds, REIT’s (Real
Estate Investment Trusts) as well as mutual funds and
limited partnerships.
Most financial vehicles are based in offshore jurisdictions,
mainly The Cayman and The Channel Islands; however
most European entities having set up a financial vehicle
in order to acquire or lease land/cultivate crops are
registered in the United Kingdom, which remains a
key jurisdiction highly benefiting opaque investors and
speculators.
So far big banking groups seem to be rarely involved
directly in land grabbing. They prefer to profit from
the new investment themes by trading commodities
in derivatives markets, buying stakes in stock listed
companies through mutual or hedge funds, or acquiring
minority stakes in private equities and partnerships that
buy and harvest land.
Therefore the “dirty job”, at least in this pioneering
period, seems to be done mostly by a series of relatively
small investment vehicles, created and headed by
former “golden boys” of big financial groups, seasoned
corporate raiders or obscure fraudsters looking for ways
to make easy money.
It should be added that a surprising number of financial
vehicles involved in land grabbing boast a commitment
to “sustainability”, “socially responsible investing” and
“ethical financing”. Sometimes they refer to alleged
partnerships with renowned international NGO’s or
environmental groups. Such claims shold be seen with
caution and require strict scrutiny.
As the financial crisis eases, the vultures of land grabbing
will bite back. At a certain time major investment banks
too might develop a stronger interest in getting involved
in this controversial market. Given the absence of these
themes in the context of the financial regulation debate
and legislative proposals advanced so far, it is time for civil
society to act in order to shape the international agenda
while exposing and challenging those responsible for such
new predatory activity which is financializing the primary
asset on which any society has developed in history: land.
8 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
Methodology
The research has been focused on 30 entities (funds, companies, REIT’s,
etc..) listed in Grain’s “Farm owners table” available on Grain’s website1.
We have chosen the most representative entities that are based in
Europe. For each entity we have created a profile, including (when available)
information about: main shareholders, launch date, assets under
management, main investors, region of interests, financial returns. Our
sources have been:
• companies’ and funds’ websites;
• financial press;
• financial blogs and forums;
• financial authorities websites;
• companies’ databases;
• company registries’ documents;
• interviews with funds’ marketing and sales employees.
In case of alleged controversies connected to an entity, we have highlighted
them in the profile quoting all available sources. In addition to
the above mentioned information, we have created small profiles of
funds’ initiators and companies’ founders whenever we thought that
they could get relevant for the research.
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 9
Name of entity Vehicles Activity Notes/Controversies
Actis Capital LLP London Actis Africa Agribusiness Fund Private equity fund investing in
emerging market companies
in the agriculture and forestry
sectors
40% control by the UK
government.
Grai Bulk Handlers Limited (in
which Actis Capital is investing)
is monopolizing grain handling
facilities in Kenya, allegedly
increasing the cost of grain
which is being passed to the
consumers.
Agrifirma Brazil Ltd St. Helier
(Jersey)
- The company invests directly in
Brazilian farmland
Major investors are Lord Jacob
Rothschild, the corporate raiders
Ian Watson and Jim Slater and a
company based in the Cayman
Islands.
Agro Terra Ltd Dublin Agro Terra Partners LLP London Private equity company that buys
and leases land and farms mainly
in Argentina
Established by Mark McLornan, a
former JP Morgan “golden boy”.
Altima Partners LLP London Altima One World Agriculture
Development Fund Ltd Cayman
Islands
Private equity fund investing
directly in farms and agribusiness
especially in Latin
America
The fund has been set up
in close co-operation with
the International Finance
Corporation (World Bank). It
invests in food commodities
and land trading, financing the
substition of cereals with oilseeds
to boos biofuel production.
Aston Lloyd Holdings PLC
London
Aston Lloyd Agri-Commodities
Ukraine
Invests directly in farmland
in Ukraine. Plans to invest in
Turkey, Northern Cyprus and
India
The aim of Aston Lloyd is to
“pick up efficiency of fields” to
then sell the land and the rights
to exploit it to hedge funds after
a period of 5 years. The company
has strong links with Emerald
Knight and Sterling Knight (see).
The three companies seem to be
part of an unique financial scam
based on land speculation.
Bramdean Alternatives Ltd St.
Peter Port (Guernsey)
Brazilian Farmland Fund
(managed through Bramdean
Asset Management LLP London)
Private equity fund investing
directly in Brazilian farmland
Investors in the fund include the
controversial Iranian business
magnate Vincent Tchenguiz and
Deutsche Bank. The fund and its
founder, Ms Nicola Horlick, are
in trouble after having placed 21
million GBP in Madoff’s funds.
Ceres Sofia Ceres Agrigrowth Investment
Fund, Sofia
Private equity fund investing in
farmland in Bulgaria
Private equity company Rosslyn
Capital Partners and Austrian
co-operative banking group
Raiffeisen Centrobank AG are
among the main shareholders.
Summary Table
10 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
Name of entity Vehicles Activity Notes/Controversies
Cru Investment Management
Ltd London
Arch Cru Fund through Africa
Invest Fund Management Ltd
London
Private equity fund investing in
five farms in Malawi
The fund has been suspended in
September 2009. Jon Maguire,
its visionary founder, is accused
of having stolen money from the
fund for personal purposes.
Elana Holding AD Sofia Elana Agricultural Land
Opportunity Fund
REIT which invests directly in
farmland in Bulgaria
Main investors are QVT Fund LP
(49, 5%), Cayman Islands, Allianz
Group and Credit Suisse. QVT
has been set up by a former
Deutsche Bank manager and
“has been involved in some of
the messier bankruptcies of the
past several years”.
Emergent Asset Management
Ltd London
African Agricultural Land Fund,
London
Big private equity fund investing
in African farmland
Set up by David Murrin and
Susan Payne, former “golden
boys” of JP Morgan and
Goldman Sachs. Susan Payne
is personally involved in
microfinance projects to “end
poverty in Africa”.
Lumix Capital AG,
Schindellegi (CH)
Lumix AgroDirect Fund -
British Virgin Islands
Private equity fund investing
directly in farmland in Latin
America
Founder and director Gonzalo
Fernandez-Castro (36) has been
Chief Marketing at Adecco Sa.
The fund is investing only $ 1m
while trying to raise capital form
private investors.
Pergam Finance SA Paris Campos Orientales Sa, Pergam
Advisory Sa, Geneva
Joint venture with Argentinian
wealthy family, Advisory services.
leasing of land in Argentina and
Uruguay
Since 2006 pergam Finance is
buying land in Argentina and
Uruguay in order to convert the
local economy from traditional
cattle production to intensive
cultivation of energetic crops
(biofuel). Back in 2006 there has
been a fierce opposition to this
company both in Argentina and
in France.
Quifel Holdings SGPS SA
Lisbon
Quifel Natural Resources SGPS
SA Lisbon
Private equity fund that directly
invests in farmland in Brazil,
Angola, Mozambique and Sierra
Leone. Focused on energy crops
(palm oil, sunflower, soya and
jathropa)
Quifel Agribusiness has recently
signed a 50 years land lease
agreement for agricultural
purposes in Sierra Leone
donating 5, 000 USD to the local
community fund.
Sarasin Bank, Basel (CH) AgriSar Fund via Sarasin
Investment Funds Ltd London
Mutual fund available to
institutional and retail investors.
The fund invests only in big listed
companies in the agriculture
sector
The fund has been set up by
Sarasin and Rabobank. Sarasin
is a recognized European
pioneer in socially responsible
investments. How is AgriSar
consistent with SRI strategies?
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 11
Name of entity Vehicles Activity Notes/Controversies
Sterling Knoght Consultants
Ltd London
Aston Lloyd Agri-Commodities
Ukraine
Sterling Knight and Emerald
Knight seem to be solely
marketing structures that
support Aston Lloyd farmland
projects
The whole Aston Llyod, Sterling
Knight and Emerald Knight story
seems to be a unique scam to
fraud small investors. Emerald
Knight claim to promote “ethical
investments” while Sterling
Knight seems to be connected
to Cohen Green Advisory, a
company present in the black
list of FSA (UK Financial Service
Authority).
Terra Firma Capital Partners
Ltd London
TFCP I, II, III Three private equity funds
invested in several companies
in different sectors. Among
them CPC, the second largest
Australia’s beef producer (90%
stake)
Terra Firma is controlled by
British financier Guy Hands (50),
a former trader at Goldman
Sachs and Nomura (where he
made a fortune with trading),
through London 58 Ltd, a
company registered in the
Cayman Islands
Trigon Agri A/S Copenhagen AS Trigon Capital Group Tallinn Private equity fund investing
directly in farmland in Russia,
Ukraine and Estonia
Founded by Estonian
businessman Joakim Helenius,
a former Merrill Lynch and
Goldman Sachs executive.
12 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
Set up: Actis Africa Agribusiness Fund
Launch: April 2006 1
Term: –
Raised Capital: committed USD 92 mln 2 (announced as USD 100 mln)
Investors: –
Purpose: –
Regions of interest: Cote d‘Ivoire, Zambia, Tanzania and South Sudan 3
Sector breakdown: –
Returns: –
Details/Background
Actis Capital LLP emerged from its own self-funded buyout after former parent CDC Capital Group 4, which is owned by
the UK government, restructered itself in 2004. 5
Ownershipstructure of Actis: owned 60% by its partners and an employee share trust, and 40% by the Secretary of State
for International Development. The Government has an 80% economic interest until 2013 and 40% thereafter. 6
Since 2004 several of CDC’s investments have been managed by Actis. 7 The company makes private equity investments in
companies in emerging markets such as Africa, China, India, Latin America, and Southeast Asia 8 and has circa 4.8 billion
USD of funds under management 9.
In April 2006 Actis launched the Actis Africa Agribusiness Fund with with a committed capital of 92 million USD. 10 The
fund’s regions of interest are announced as Cote d’Ivoire, Zambia, Tanzania and South Sudan 11. In 2007 the fund invested
15 million USD in Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, which is a “state of the art integrated grain terminal at Mombasa Port in
Kenya”. 12
In 2007 Actis Africa Agribusiness has sold its USD 29mln participation in Compagnie Hévéicole de Cavally (CHC), Côte
d’Ivoire, which manages 2, 000 hectares of rubber plantations in the Moyen Cavally region. Actis Agribusiness and, before
2006, CDC investments in CHC has brought a profit growth of 164% for CDC 13.
1 Actis News, 2007. Actis invests in Kenyan Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, 5 February.
2 Actis News, 2007. Actis invests in Kenyan Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, 5 February.
3 Actis News, 2007. Actis invests in Kenyan Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, 5 February.
4 Established in 1948, CDC Group focuses on investing in emerging markets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, specifically for the private sector. Owned
by the UK government (though the government is not involved with the firm’s operations), CDC does not make the investments themselves; instead, the
firm leverages the use of a third party fund manager. It zeroes in on poorer countries with a specific focus on the sub-Saharan Africa, South America, and
South, Southeast and Central Asia regions. CDC has net assets of more than $4 billion. (Hoovers, 2010. Hoover’s Company Records - In-depth Records,
Company Profile CDC Group LLP London, 17 February.)
5 Hoovers, 2010. Hoover’s Company Records - In-depth Records, Company Profile Actis Capital LLP London, 2 February.
6 Shareholder Executive, 2009. Actis Profile.
7 CDC Group, 2010. http://www.cdcgroup.com/compagnie-heveicole.aspx.
8 Hoovers, 2010. Hoover’s Company Records - In-depth Records, Company Profile Actis Capital LLP London, 2 February.
9 Shareholder Executive, 2009. Actis Profile.
10 Actis News, 2007. Actis invests in Kenyan Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, 5 February.
11 Actis News, 2007. Actis invests in Kenyan Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, 5 February.
12 Actis News, 2007. Actis invests in Kenyan Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, 5 February.
13 See CDC internet site www.cdcgroup.com
Actis Capital LLP London
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 13
Additional information: Actis has moreover invested in a number of companies in West Africa, including; Diamond Bank,
Mouka Foam, UAC and Exoro (Seven Energy). 14 In addition, the firm has real estate assets in Ghana and Nigeria, as well as
infrastructure interests throughout the region. 15
Conclusion
Actis claims to invest its money as growth capital for a clearly defined time frame. Afterwards it pulls out and the projects
run on self-determined.
Controversies
Grain Bulk Handlers Limited (in which Actis Capital is investing) is monopolising grain handling facilities in Kenya. Though
GBHL’s eight-year monopoly licence expired in February 2008, the company is still acting as a monopolist 16. The licensing
of a second handler, promised by the government, is at the centre of controversy since 2008. While Kenyan millers are
pushing for a second grain bulk facility, the government is taking time and GBHL is further expanding its presence in the
port of Mombasa. A “Lobby for additional Fertilizer and Grain Handling Facility in Mombasa” has launched an online
petition in 2009, stating that GHBL’s monopoly is “increasing the cost of grain which is being passed to the consumers
who are impoverished due to rising cost of food“ 17.
According to government sources, due to soli type and weather considerations, Kenya imports 70% of its raw wheat
and “it will continue to import it from Ukraine, Argentina, Russia, United States of America and Australia. Presently the
imported wheat constitutes 70% of Kenya’s wheat requirements.
Michael Turner, Actis managing partner, is currently member of the Board of GHBL.
14 Hoovers, 2010. Hoover’s Company Records - In-depth Records, Company Profile Actis Capital LLP London, 2 February and AllAfrica, 2009. Actis West
Africa Gets New Head, 14 July.
15 Hoovers, 2010. Hoover’s Company Records - In-depth Records, Company Profile Actis Capital LLP London, 2 February and AllAfrica, 2009. Actis West
Africa Gets New Head, 14 July.
16 Daily Nation, Kenya: Grain Firm’s Growth Raises Storm, 9 September 2009
17 GoPetition, Lobby for additional Fertilizer and Grain Handling Facility in Mombasa, Kenya, 8 February 2009
14 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
Set up by: Ian Watson and Jim Slater 1
Launched: In 2008 2
Term: –
Raised Capital: Sharecapital GBP 154.438.848 3
Investors: RIT Capital Partners PLC London 14, 06% (whose Chairman is Lord Jacob Rothschild),
The Old Coach House Trustees Ltd Bergh Apton 12, 95%, Agrifirma Ltd Grand Cayman 9, 7%
(according to the Annual Return of the 1 January 2009) 4
Purpose: –
Regions of interest: 42.105 hectares in Western Bahia, north east of Brazil (acquired three farms ncluding the
land: Campo Aberto/Bananal, Arrojadinho, Rio do Meio) 5 – option to buy a fourth farm
Bananal B having another 27.007 hectares 6
Sector Breakdown: Coffee, cotton, corn and soybeans with state-of-the-art technology.
Returns: –
Details/Background
Ian Watson and Jim Slater look back on a long business relationship having founded and successfully run Galahad Gold
from 2003 until 2008. 7 Galahad Gold invested in companies mining metals, gold but also uranium via stakes Niger
Uranium Ltd Gauteng and UraMin Inc Toronto 8. After selling the stakes with an average net cash return of 280, 4%, they
dissolved Galahad Gold and founded Agrifirma Brazil 9.
The Board of Directors of Agrifirma Brazil Ltd London comes up with Julio Bestani (co-founder of Adecoagro, a
farmland development business backed by George Soros), Peter Stormonth Darling (former Chairman of Mercury Asset
Management Group), Brazilian’s ex-minister of agriculture Roberto Rodrigues (2003-2006) and Carlos Ortiz (Head of Rural
Banking Rabobank International, Sao Paulo, Brazil). 10
Besides the fact of Agrifirm Brazil Ltd being registered offshore, almost ten percent are held by an Agrifirm Ltd, registered
in the Cayman Islands. Agrifirm Brazil moreover does have three 100% subsidiaries in Luxembourg: AB (Holdings) 1 SARL,
AB (Holdings) 2 SARL, AB (Holdings) 3 SARL. 11 In Brazil its subsidiaries are: Agrifirma Brazil Agropecuaria Ltd, Agrifirma
Campo Alberto Agropecuaria Ltd, Agrifirma Mato Grosso Agropecuaria Ltd and RARO Assessoria Agricola Ltda. 12 In
Argentina there is existing a subsidiary called Agrifirma Srl as well, which may be interpreted as an attempt to enter in
business in Argentina as well. 13
1 Agrifirma Brazil Ltd, 2010. Investors on http://www.agrifirma-brazil.com/investors.html
2 Agrifirma Brazil Ltd, 2010. Investors on http://www.agrifirma-brazil.com/investors.html
3 Company Register Jersey, 2009. Annual Return of Agrifirma Brazil Ltd St Helier, 1 January.
4 Company Register Jersey, 2009. Annual Return of Agrifirma Brazil Ltd St Helier, 1 January.
5 Agrifirma Brazil Ltd, 2010. Farm Holdings on http://www.agrifirma-brazil.com/farmholdings.html
6 Agrifirma Brazil Ltd, 2010. Farm Holdings on http://www.agrifirma-brazil.com/farmholdings.html
7 Agrifirma Brazil Ltd, 2010. Investors on http://www.agrifirma-brazil.com/investors.html
8 Galahad Gold, 2007. Galahad Track Record, 19 September.
9 Agrifirma Brazil Ltd, 2010. Investors on http://www.agrifirma-brazil.com/investors.html
10 Agrifirma Brazil Ltd, 2010. Board of Directors on http://www.agrifirma-brazil.com/directors.html
11 Company Register Jersey, 2009. Consolidated Financial Statements of Agrifirma Brazil Ltd St Helier, 30 June.
12 Company Register Jersey, 2009. Consolidated Financial Statements of Agrifirma Brazil Ltd St Helier, 30 June.
13 Company Register Jersey, 2009. Consolidated Financial Statements of Agrifirma Brazil Ltd St Helier, 30 June.
Agrifirma Brazil Limited St. Helier (Jersey)
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 15
From mining to farming: the wily old foxes bite back
James Derrick Slater (81), after performing “corporate raids” on public companies in his
youth (60’s/70’s) thorugh the investment company Slater Walker, he became famous as one of
the most aggressive investors of the City. As a financial raider, he bought controlling stakes in
companies, maximised the return selling disposable assets (no matter if they were properties,
plants or workforce) and then sold the companies making huge profits. Due to his tactics,
“Slater Walker” became a synonym for hardship and distress associated with the human costs
of unemployment 14.
With Ian Watson, he founded Galahad Gold in 2002, “succesfully timing the commodities
boom” 15 and making annualised 66% profits with which he started a new venture
(Agrifirma), again with Watson, to speculate in Brazilian farmland. He has been a close
friend and business partner of finance magnate Sir James Goldsmith, who saved him from
bankruptcy in 1975, when Slater Walker went bust.
Ian Watson was born in Scotland. He began his business career in stockbroking in Canada
and Europe. In 1982, he co-founded with Jim Slater Centennial Minerals, a gold mining
company which was later sold to Pegasus in 1985. Between 1985 and 2002, Ian invested with
Jim Slater in several different business ventures and also invested in a telephony business in
France, the U.S., Mexico and the Caribbean.
In 2002, Ian co-founded Galahad Gold to take advantage of the commodities boom. During
the next four years, Galahad made profits averaging 66% per annum from its investments in
gold, molybdenum and uranium mining companies.
In 2008, Ian and Jim Slater co-founded Agrifirma Brazil, an agricultural company based in
Brazil in which he has a substantial investment. 16
14 Wikipedia 2010. James Derrick Slater, 25 February, see also http://www.jimslater.org.uk/
15 Wikipedia 2010. James Derrick Slater, 25 February, see also http://www.jimslater.org.uk/
16 Ian Watson, 2010. Welcome to ianwatson.biz: the website of Ian Watson, http://ianwatson.dev.ambergreen.co.uk/
16 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
Set up: Agro Terra Partners LLP, London
Launch: Agro Terra Partners LLP London has been launched on the 11 May 2009. 1
Term: –
Raised Capital: –
Investors: Strategic Investors 2
Purpose: Aim is to expand land holdings and develop a company that will benefit handsomely
from the upcoming changes in the agricultural commodities market. 3 Invest in
both public and private opportunities. The portfolio will be a combination of
unlisted investments and opportunistic listed investments. 4
Regions of interest: Owns and farms land in Argentina 5, interested in Latin America, North America,
Europe and Australia. 6
Farms in Argentina: La Toldería (3506 hectares) 7; El Descanso (5431 hectares) 8
and Sandoval (3368 hectares) 9
Sector breakdown: Low cost production of corn, wheat, barley, maize and soybean.
Returns: AgroTerra boasts returns of 50% to 60% for a two/three years investment in its farms 10.
Details/Background:
Mark McLornan is the Founding Partner and Chairman of Agro Terra Ltd, which has been established in Ireland in 2005. 11
Agro Terra Ltd Dublin’s shareholders are: Agro Terra SA Buenos Aires (95%) and Fondomente Inversiones Argentina SA
Buenos Aires (5%). 12
1 ICC Information Group Ltd, 2010. Agro TE Limited, 22 May.
2 Agro Terra Partners, 2010. Investment Process on www.agro-terra.com, 15 February.
3 Agro Terra, 2010. Investor Info: http://www.agro-terra.com/InvestorInfo.aspx
4 Agro Terra Partners, 2010. Introduction to Agro Terra Partners on www.agro-terra.com, 15 February.
5 Milken Institute, 2009. Speaker’s Biography: Mark McLornan, April.
6 Agro Terra Partners, 2010. Introduction to Agro Terra Partners on www.agro-terra.com, 15 February.
7 Agro Terra, 2010. http://www.agro-terra.com/LaTolderia.aspx
8 Agro Terra, 2010. http://www.agro-terra.com/newFarm2.aspx
9 Agro Terra, 2010. http://www.agro-terra.com/newFarm3.aspx
10 Agricultural Capital Partners Plc, Executive Summary, 2008.“One of our directors, Jim McCarthy, is involved in the management of an Irish-led Argentinean
grain operation which has just released impressive results showing returns of up to 50% to investors over the last two and a half years”
11 Milken Institute, 2009. Speaker’s Biography: Mark McLornan, April.
12 Companies Register Ireland, 2008. Modified Financial Statements of Agro Terra Ltd, 30 June.
Agro Terra Ltd Dublin
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 17
A JP Morgan golden boy
Mark McLornan has a bachelor’s degree in banking and finance and started his career at JPMorgan
Chase as a proprietary trader in the Fixed Income Division in London. 13 Before starting to do
business in the agricultural sector he has been senior portfolio manager at the London Diversified
Hedge Fund (LDHF), “overseeing investments on a global macro basis”. 14 LDHF Management, once
one of London’s largest hedge fund managers, had a lot of press in the beginning of 2009, when it
has lost five partners after a year in which its main two products lost more than their average peers
and the firm restricted investors from withdrawing their money. 15
Agro Terra’s investment categories 16:
1. Proven agricultural companies who are looking to exploit value opportunities within their sector.
2. Mid-development companies who have a strong management team, but are experiencing financing difficulties.
Conclusion:
Ex-Hedgefund Manager invests the money he owns in buying and leasing land in Argentina via small company set up in
Dublin. Afterwards he launches Agro Terra Partners LLC London, which acts as a private equity vehicle, in order to expand
quickly to gain foothold in the commodities sector.
13 Milken Institute, 2009. Speaker’s Biography: Mark McLornan, April.
14 Milken Institute, 2009. Speaker’s Biography: Mark McLornan, April.
15 E-Financial news, 2009. Five partners leave London Diversified Fund Management, 27 March.
16 Agro Terra Partners, 2010. Investment Process on www.agro-terra.com, 15 February.
18 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
Altima Partners LLP London (UK)
Set up: Altima One World Agriculture Development Fund Limited (Cayman Islands)
Launch: in September 2008
Term: –
Raised Capital: USD 625 mln
Investors: International Finance Corporation (World Bank private-sector lender) invested 75 mln
USD (12% of AOWADF’s volume)
Purpose: Invest in agricultural production land and world-class farm operators for Free to Profit
Commodities Trading. 1
Regions of interest: Has already invested in agribusinesses in Latin America and Eastern and Central Europe,
and the fund was looking to expand into former Soviet states, Central Asia and
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sector Breakdown: Agriculture and Forestry
Returns: –
Details/Background
IFC has teamed up with Altima in order invest in Altima’s Cayman Island registered Agriculture Fund but also in order to
“create a parallel vehicle that specifically targets emerging markets”. 2 By investing in the Altima fund, IFC is leveraging
its resources to stimulate growth in agricultural production in emerging markets. 3 The AOWAF is IFC’s largest equity
investment in its expanding agribusiness portfolio. 4
With respect to the so-called parallel vehicle IFC announces: “The proposed IFC investment will be made via a vehicle (the
Investment Vehicle) established as an agribusiness fund that will invest in IFC eligible agricultural farming and production
companies globally. The project will only participate in private equity investments which are also invested by Altima One
World Agricultural Master Fund Limited (AOWAF). It is expected that AOWAF will invest alongside IFC in the Investment
Vehicle. AOWAF will also make investments which are not IFC eligible and the Investment Vehicle shall not participate in
such investments.” 5
Investment advisor for AOWAF is Altima Partners LLP London, whose sub-advisor is Altima Advisors Americas LP, a
company registered in Delaware.
Controversies
In 2007, together with the Argentinian Group “El Téjar”, Altima Partners has formed a company, registered in Bermuda,
called “Campos Verdes” with the aim of collecting USD 200 mln from investors in order to buy farmland in Brazil and
other countries. The project “Campos Verdes” has been launched through a complex company structure: Altima bought
1 Commodity Online, 2009. IFC provides $75 mn support for Altima Agri Fund, 16 February.
2 Commodity Online, 2009. IFC provides $75 mn support for Altima Agri Fund, 16 February.
3 Commodity Online, 2009. IFC provides $75 mn support for Altima Agri Fund, 16 February.
4 Commodity Online, 2009. IFC provides $75 mn support for Altima Agri Fund, 16 February.
5 International Finance Corporation, 2009. Altima Agro - Summary of Proposed Investment, 24 April.
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 19
the 23, 5% of El Tejar (about USD 50 mln), while El Tejar created a subsidiary, called Edary, that, associated with one of
Altima’s funds, controlled the newco Campos Verdes. At its turn Campos Verdes controlled CV Luxco, a company based in
Luxembourg, which owned a series of joint stock companies in the different countries where farmland had to be bought.
In 2008 the “Campos Verdes” project has been abandoned because Altima has not been able to raise a sufficient amount
of capital. In the same year El Tejar and Campos Verdes
merged and created El Tejar Limited (ETL) in Bermuda. 6
In 2009 ETL received USD 150 million equity from a large investment fund belonging to The Capital Group, a privately
held organization based in the USA. ETL’s business is now focused on two components:
a) food commodities production and
b) real estate, looking at capital gains generated with land acquisitions and sales (land value arbitrage among the different
countries and regions).
Another USD 150 mln have been awarded to El Tejar in July 2008 through a loan structured by the Dutch development
bank FMO and subscribed by Standard Bank (South Africa) and the French fund manager Cordiant Capital.
Born in 1987 as an association of meat producing families, El Tejar has developed in the last ten years to become one of
the biggest farmland investors in Argentina. The access to foreign capitals has been crucial to transform this local group
into an international player in the food commodities and real estate sectors.
El Tejar SA is now weighing an initial public offering in the New York “to tap rising investor demand for farming assets”. 7
6 Infocampo.com.ar, Inyección de 150 M/u$s en El Tejar, 29 August 2008
7 Bloomberg, 2010, Hedge Fund-Backed Farm Group Tejar Weighs U.S. IPO, 11 March 2010
20 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
Aston Lloyd Holdings PLC London
Set up: Aston Lloyd’s Agri-Commodities Ukraine (managed via Eurofarms LLC Kiev 1)
Launch: –
Term: –
Raised Capital: –
Investors: All clients are required to pay the below costs at entry-level:
- Land: US$1, 250 per hectare
- Legal fees: US$140 per hectare.
In July 2010, clients will also have to pay: Cultivation fee: US$750 per hectare. 2
Purpose: –
Regions of interest: Fields are located in Vinnitsa, central Ukraine. 3
Sector breakdown: The following five crops will be produced on a rotational basis and will be
determined based on market prices for seeds, fertilizers etc., as well as the global
commodities price for that crop:
- Wheat
- Barley
- Rapeseed
- Sunflower
- Maize (corn). 4
Returns: Clients will receive 45% of the total net profit from the harvest in December 2011,
and then 30% of the net profit annually from January 2013. Crop yield for each “pai”
will be calculated accurately by an industry-recognised agricultural technique,
precision farming. 5
Details/Background
The projected exit for this investment is 2014. This is predicted to occur within the time period based on expressed interest
from institutional funds. 6
Ukraine Details: In January 2002, a new land code was introduced in Ukraine regarding ownership rights over Ukrainian
land. The code prohibits foreign citizens, legal entities and governments from acquiring agro-industrial land. Therefore,
lease arrangements are the only way foreign investors can take advantage of agricultural land in Ukraine. A lease may be
short-term (2-5 years), medium-term (5-25 years) or long-term (up to 49 years). Clients in Aston Lloyd’s project will enjoy a
contractually binding right to receive income from a lease term of not less than 10 years, and up to a maximum of 15 years.
Where the original lease term is less than 15 years, Aston Lloyd will endeavour to increase it to 15 years. 7
1 See: http://www.eurofarms.com.ua
2 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
3 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
4 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
5 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
6 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
7 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 21
The company
The Aston Lloyd projects appear to be managed by a series of dubious companies, controlled by Aston Lloyd Holdings
plc, a firm created in 2001 by a certain Robert William Wing, a real estate investor. In December 2008 Wing has left the
company, that is now owned by two individuals: Ms Kulvir Virk and Mr Joseph Edward Upchurch. 8 Ms Virk controls and
manages also Svs Securities, a London based company specialised in brokerage services for investors. Until September
2008 Ms Virk has been a director of Trafalgar New Homes plc London, a company incorporated in 2005 “to fill a gap
in the market for the provision of affordable homes in London and Greater London”. 9 Mr Upchurch is still a director of
Trafalgar, while Ms Virk and a certain Ashley Sheldrick continue to be the main shareholders. 10 According to a series of
news releases, Trafalgar New Homes plc has been seriously hit by the real estate and financial crisis. This is probably one
of the reasons why Ms Virk and Mr Upchurch have decided to try their luck with farmland investments. According to the
company’s corporate brochure, Aston Lloyd has 70 million pounds worth of property under construction.
Investment details
Aston Lloyd is structuring farmland investments in Ukraine, Turkey, Northern Cyprus and other countries. The Ukrainian
project seems to be the best developed, though the company is still collecting money from investors and the production
has yet to be started. According to a time schedule published in company brochures, crop plantation should begin in
2011 (see picture below). Farmland investments in Ukraine are controlled by a chain of companies: at the top of the chain
there’s Aston Holdings Plc, followed by Aston Lloyd Agri-Commodities Ltd. and Aston Lloyd Agri-Commodities Llc, which
owns the Ukraine based company Eurofarms Llc, a farm management company that will “oversee the operations and the
cultivation of land”.
Source: Aston Lloyd Agri-Commodities Ltd, Ukraine Presentation
The 22th of February 2010 we have registered on Aston Lloyd’s website pretending to be “potential investors”. The day
after we have been contacted by a certain Daniel Lawrence of Aston. Daniel, who appeared to belong to a call center
more than to the company’s staff, told us that “the investment in Ukraine will deliver huge dividends”. He said that “the
investment is suitable also for small investors that would like to put 5, 000 € in the project”. He added that the structure of
the project relies on three pillars:
1) Land Value (Ukrainian Agricultural Land price is projected to increase by 50% within a year, and it is projected that land
values will continue to increase by 28% annually thereafter - Financial Times 2009)
2) Yield value: metric tonnes of produce per ha will increase due to “new efficiency measures”
3) Exit strategy and Investment Value: “After picking up efficiency (in a period of 5 years), the land and the rights to
8 Companies House, London, 2010, Aston Lloyd Holdings Plc., Annual Return, 07 January
9 Growth Investor, 2005, Trafalgar scents victory, 1 November, by James Crux
10 Trafalgar New Homes Plc 2008, Press Release, 30 September
22 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
exploit it will be sold to an hedge fund or alike, offering significant returns to investors”.
Since we had originally asked about the “jathropa cultivation project” presented on the company’s website, Mr Lawrence
assured us that “the project will be developed soon, probably at the beginning of March”. He said the he cannot
anticipate anything, he could only say that the project structure would be similar to the one on Ukraine and based on the
usual three pillars. He added that the cultivation of jathropa (an “energy plant” used to produce biofuel) on behalf of
Aston Lloyd is due to start “somewhere in India”. Lawrence told us also that “we will be contacted before the starting of
the public offering for jathropa” so that we will be “among the first to know about the possibility of investment and its
general conditions”.
Controversies
There are reasons to believe that the whole Aston Lloyd project is only a scam, meant to collect money from small
investors speculating on the current appeal of farmland. The following findings give us reason for concern:
- the company alleges to invest in Northern-Cyprus, a controversial region in the Cyprus Island that is nor recognized by
any country in the world except Turkey. Northern-Cyprus territory is known for its “offshore banks” which launder and
shelter the illegal proceeds from drugs and human trafficking;
- no big investor is behind Aston Lloyd’s projects. It seems that a handful of individual, who have badly tried their luck
with real estate

4516 days ago by Martin Lucas

Ground crew

4516 days ago by Martin Lucas

Bald

4516 days ago by Martin Lucas

John turpie don

4516 days ago by Martin Lucas

David bussey sucks michaels cock every friday!

4516 days ago by Martin Lucas

oh yes michael!

4516 days ago by Martin Lucas

Aston Lloyd Holdings PLC London
Set up: Aston Lloyd’s Agri-Commodities Ukraine (managed via Eurofarms LLC Kiev 1)
Launch: –
Term: –
Raised Capital: –
Investors: All clients are required to pay the below costs at entry-level:
- Land: US$1, 250 per hectare
- Legal fees: US$140 per hectare.
In July 2010, clients will also have to pay: Cultivation fee: US$750 per hectare. 2
Purpose: –
Regions of interest: Fields are located in Vinnitsa, central Ukraine. 3
Sector breakdown: The following five crops will be produced on a rotational basis and will be
determined based on market prices for seeds, fertilizers etc., as well as the global
commodities price for that crop:
- Wheat
- Barley
- Rapeseed
- Sunflower
- Maize (corn). 4
Returns: Clients will receive 45% of the total net profit from the harvest in December 2011,
and then 30% of the net profit annually from January 2013. Crop yield for each “pai”
will be calculated accurately by an industry-recognised agricultural technique,
precision farming. 5
Details/Background
The projected exit for this investment is 2014. This is predicted to occur within the time period based on expressed interest
from institutional funds. 6
Ukraine Details: In January 2002, a new land code was introduced in Ukraine regarding ownership rights over Ukrainian
land. The code prohibits foreign citizens, legal entities and governments from acquiring agro-industrial land. Therefore,
lease arrangements are the only way foreign investors can take advantage of agricultural land in Ukraine. A lease may be
short-term (2-5 years), medium-term (5-25 years) or long-term (up to 49 years). Clients in Aston Lloyd’s project will enjoy a
contractually binding right to receive income from a lease term of not less than 10 years, and up to a maximum of 15 years.
Where the original lease term is less than 15 years, Aston Lloyd will endeavour to increase it to 15 years. 7
1 See: http://www.eurofarms.com.ua
2 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
3 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
4 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
5 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
6 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
7 Aston Lloyd, 2010. Ukraine FAQs on www.aston-lloyd.co.uk
The Vultures of Land Grabbing 21
The company
The Aston Lloyd projects appear to be managed by a series of dubious companies, controlled by Aston Lloyd Holdings
plc, a firm created in 2001 by a certain Robert William Wing, a real estate investor. In December 2008 Wing has left the
company, that is now owned by two individuals: Ms Kulvir Virk and Mr Joseph Edward Upchurch. 8 Ms Virk controls and
manages also Svs Securities, a London based company specialised in brokerage services for investors. Until September
2008 Ms Virk has been a director of Trafalgar New Homes plc London, a company incorporated in 2005 “to fill a gap
in the market for the provision of affordable homes in London and Greater London”. 9 Mr Upchurch is still a director of
Trafalgar, while Ms Virk and a certain Ashley Sheldrick continue to be the main shareholders. 10 According to a series of
news releases, Trafalgar New Homes plc has been seriously hit by the real estate and financial crisis. This is probably one
of the reasons why Ms Virk and Mr Upchurch have decided to try their luck with farmland investments. According to the
company’s corporate brochure, Aston Lloyd has 70 million pounds worth of property under construction.
Investment details
Aston Lloyd is structuring farmland investments in Ukraine, Turkey, Northern Cyprus and other countries. The Ukrainian
project seems to be the best developed, though the company is still collecting money from investors and the production
has yet to be started. According to a time schedule published in company brochures, crop plantation should begin in
2011 (see picture below). Farmland investments in Ukraine are controlled by a chain of companies: at the top of the chain
there’s Aston Holdings Plc, followed by Aston Lloyd Agri-Commodities Ltd. and Aston Lloyd Agri-Commodities Llc, which
owns the Ukraine based company Eurofarms Llc, a farm management company that will “oversee the operations and the
cultivation of land”.
Source: Aston Lloyd Agri-Commodities Ltd, Ukraine Presentation
The 22th of February 2010 we have registered on Aston Lloyd’s website pretending to be “potential investors”. The day
after we have been contacted by a certain Daniel Lawrence of Aston. Daniel, who appeared to belong to a call center
more than to the company’s staff, told us that “the investment in Ukraine will deliver huge dividends”. He said that “the
investment is suitable also for small investors that would like to put 5, 000 € in the project”. He added that the structure of
the project relies on three pillars:
1) Land Value (Ukrainian Agricultural Land price is projected to increase by 50% within a year, and it is projected that land
values will continue to increase by 28% annually thereafter - Financial Times 2009)
2) Yield value: metric tonnes of produce per ha will increase due to “new efficiency measures”
3) Exit strategy and Investment Value: “After picking up efficiency (in a period of 5 years), the land and the rights to
8 Companies House, London, 2010, Aston Lloyd Holdings Plc., Annual Return, 07 January
9 Growth Investor, 2005, Trafalgar scents victory, 1 November, by James Crux
10 Trafalgar New Homes Plc 2008, Press Release, 30 September
22 The Vultures of Land Grabbing
exploit it will be sold to an hedge fund or alike, offering significant returns to investors”.
Since we had originally asked about the “jathropa cultivation project” presented on the company’s website, Mr Lawrence
assured us that “the project will be developed soon, probably at the beginning of March”. He said the he cannot
anticipate anything, he could only say that the project structure would be similar to the one on Ukraine and based on the
usual three pillars. He added that the cultivation of jathropa (an “energy plant” used to produce biofuel) on behalf of
Aston Lloyd is due to start “somewhere in India”. Lawrence told us also that “we will be contacted before the starting of
the public offering for jathropa” so that we will be “among the first to know about the possibility of investment and its
general conditions”.
Controversies
There are reasons to believe that the whole Aston Lloyd project is only a scam, meant to collect money from small
investors speculating on the current appeal of farmland. The following findings give us reason for concern:
- the company alleges to invest in Northern-Cyprus, a controversial region in the Cyprus Island that is nor recognized by
any country in the world except Turkey. Northern-Cyprus territory is known for its “offshore banks” which launder and
shelter the illegal proceeds from drugs and human trafficking;
- no big investor is behind Aston Lloyd’s projects. It seems that a handful of individual, who have badly tried their luck
with real estate investments are now betting on farmland with no adequate capital or expertise. In its corporate brochure
Aston Lloyd lists Barclays Plc as an “associate”, though there’s no evidence anywhere else that the UK bank Group is
supporting Aston Lloyd’s projects in any way;
The company has strong links to Emerald Knight Consultants Ltd and Sterling Knight Consultants Ltd (see Sterling Knight’s
profile). According to what we could assess from our open source analysis, there are reasons to suspect that these three
companies are involved in some sort of financial scam.

« Previous 1...8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »