Carlauren Group and John Joannis have written to Carlauren investors attempting to persuade them to support the appointment of their preferred administrator. As usual, everything that comes out from Carlauren Group and John Joannis should be treated with suspicion. Everything they write is an attempt to confuse investors and tie them up in knots (hence the image above). They will do anything to avoid an investigation into the company’s affairs.
This latest attempt should set alarm bells ringing for investors. Safe Or Scam gets a mention in the email from Mr Joannis.
We’ve copied the email below in full. We have not corrected any of the spelling mistakes so that investors can view the entire email and our response. Our response is in blue italics.
From: John Joannis <[email protected]>
Date: 12 November 2019 at 19:07
To: John Joannis <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlauren Updates
Mr Joannis has used the words ‘Without Prejudice’ at the beginning of his email because this term has legal implications. The term “Without Prejudice” means that his email cannot be tendered as evidence in court. It allows him to make false statements to investors safe in the knowledge that this email cannot be used in court if he fails to deliver on his promises.
Dear Studio Owner,
Im writing this letter by way of an update since you were last contacted by Carlauren and its associated companies. As you know, I have been speaking too many investors with a view to a rescue plan which we are in the process of putting together. This plan would see an approximate 20% cash return on what you have paid for your studio along with a 5 year plan based on the continued refurbishment of non completed properties and a trading future which would be in line with Carlauren’s initial plans .
“an approximate 20% cash return”. The investors who have contacted us have said Mr Joannis has offered them less than 20%.
“A 5 year plan based on the continued refurbishment of non-completed properties”. This is very dangerous for investors. Mr Joannis has given no details of what investors can expect as a deal for accepting less than 20% of the price they paid. This appears to be an attempt to take control of investor properties so that investors cannot prosecute Carlauren Group, Mr Murray, Mr Jamieson and others for the misappropriation of funds.
It is not worth us commenting on the phrase “a trading future in line with Carlauren’s initial plans”. Those trading plans were pure fantasy at the start and they’re fantasy now. Carlauren has 25 sites and not one of them is operating as a care home.
The time involved in presenting a proper plan you all will not be in place before the hearing listed on the 26th November 2019. The reason for writing you this urgent letter is as follows.
That’s just not acceptable. It is fair to accept that DETAILED plans might take some time to put together, but to just say investors will get approximately 20% and then say nothing else about what their future entitlements might be is a deliberate attempt to make it look like there is a plan when there is not. Mr Joannis is just trying to protect his friend, Sean Murray, from prosecution. We have a note on file to check the transactions between Carlauren Group companies and Mr Joannis.
In the last week , I have been made aware of a BBC interview statement from Phillip Duffy ( a proposed joint partner with Quantuma) the interview was in regards to his successful court appointment around Gavin Woodhouse company NPD, I have noted 2 alarming points around his appointment which was deemed to be for the interests of investors as a whole.
His comment to the BBC which was released on the 9th November ( 3 days ago) says the following
“ Administrator Phil Duffy told the BBC that investors’ interests in the hotels were being set aside by a judge in order to market the hotels. They are inviting bids from potential buyers, to be received by 15 November. Any money raised from the sales will be distributed among investors according to how much they had invested.”
Based on the above, if Quantuma and Phil Duffy are to win their application on our properties, I and all of you will loose any rights to the actual unit we purchased, they will then fire sale for the best offer on a 6 day auction , how can this possibly be in our best interest. I would also like to advise you that the fee’s in question amount to extortionate hourly costs. We affectingly are allowing them to run our investments and get paid first leaving whatever is left to the owner of a studio.
We haven’t seen the BBC comment, but if it is true then Mr Duffy is talking about a scam which is almost identical to Carlauren Group. We wouldn’t disagree that something similar might happen with Carlauren Group properties. That might actually be in investors’ best interests. Here’s why –
Let’s say a hotel is taken over by an administrator acting IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF INVESTORS. The hotel has 50 rooms owned by 50 different investors spread around Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. Let’s forget about an outside buyer coming in for the moment. Let’s say that 45 of the investors decide they want to take over the hotel. Investors can do that. 3 investors don’t want to be a part of it so they would take a fair settlement payment. 2 investors have not responded. The takeover cannot go ahead because 2 people own rooms and are not part of the deal. For the 48 to be able to move forward they have to ask the court to “set aside” all the leases so that the takeover can go ahead. It does not mean that the 2 investors get nothing. It just means that those 2 investors, if they ever make contact in the future, cannot undo the takeover. The court will see to it that they are treated fairly if they ever come forward.
Investors need that to happen anyway even if an outside buyer wants to buy the hotel. A buyer is not going to buy a hotel where there are 2 rooms owned by people who have not come forward. If the buyer WAS prepared to take the risk he would reduce the price to the other 48 owners to cover any potential claims from the 2 missing investors. At some point it is likely that every investor is going to have to agree to give up their lease in order to get the best possible price. The important point here is that investors have no choice. They have been advised by their administrator to give up the leases to get the best possible price for their rooms. Under the Joannis proposal investors are voluntarily giving up their leases in order to go into a business arrangement with him and the people responsible for the losses. In court that looks entirely different and may affect the investors’ right to prosecute the guilty parties. Mr Joannis’ deal is far worse for investors.
I have been working closely with Sean Murray and also talking to Craig Povey of CVR Global LLP, an international from of restructuring specialists ( who would with the support of creditors, would be in a position to be appointed Administrators) It is clearly apparent that their is a rescue plan that is far more advantageous that what looks like is going to happen if Carl Jackson and Philip Duffy are appointed.
I would urge investors to read the articles on our blog page which relate to Park First. What Mr Joannis is proposing is that investors choose to support an administrator appointed by Sean Murray. Park First has an administrator appointed by the directors. That company has also been described as a rescue specialist. When an administrator is appointed by directors it will promote solutions that protect the interests of those directors. Its recommendation to investors in the Park First case was as follows:
- That investors write off the missing money (in the case of Park First it was £115m);
- That investors accept that there will be no investigation into the conduct of the directors;
- That investors allow the existing directors to continue to run the business.
Any investor who supports an administrator appointed by Sean Murray can expect to see the missing money written off, no investigation and Sean Murray left in control. That is the worst possible outcome for investors.
I have also attached a statement from Carl Jackson on his 2018 accounts filed for Quantuma , you will see that he makes point about a “new GDPR department “ If the court agree that he was wrongly appointed of which seems very apparent from the evidence, he may have broken every rule in the book on GDPR which is why I believe he is aggressively trying to get his appointment back dated by the court . If he is not successful, we are able to seek damages from his firm based on all the speculative information he has circulated to us and by default to the media via Safe or Scam, using our private email addresses. This has without question ruined the Carlauren brand and seen the turnover plummet based on staff leaving, also any fees run up to date by them would not be claimable.
We will see what happens in court. I don’t think Safe Or Scam can be blamed for ruining the Carlauren brand. Murray killed it stone dead by misappropriating all the money. The Group was broke and had stopped paying rentals many months before we appeared on the scene. Carlauren Group was supposed to be a care home business but it only had one care home in operation and that was closed down because it was losing money. Murray and Jamieson have a lot to answer for. We would refer Mr Joannis to a relatively well known saying – “You can’t polish a t**d”. We would suggest that Mr Joannis puts his polish away.
Mr Joannis was an investor in Carlauren but is now an employee. Now that Mr Joannis is at the heart of the scam why hasn’t he come out and told investors where the money went ? Any person who is genuinely on the side of investors would be able to tell them exactly where the money went.
I have attached a vote document in favour of appointing Craig Povey over Carl Jackson , the net effect is the same, however I do believe as an investor and also someone who has personally called over 150 investors that this would be a far better appointment over Jackson and Duffy should the court decide on the 26th November. If you are in agreement with me, please fill out the attached document, scan and email back to me. I will then ensure that the document is submitted to the court along with my wildness statement.
Mr Joannis hasn’t called 150 investors. We know a hell of a lot of them and they haven’t been called. There is no doubt that the appointment of Craig Povey would be a much better appointment for Sean Murray and John Joannis. It would be a very bad appointment for every other investor.
I believe in light of the pending issues which will effect us all the appointment of Craig Povey over Carl Jackson would be a more viable option, the net effect is the same, however I do believe as an investor and also someone who has personally called over 150 investors that this would be a far better appointment over Jackson and Duffy should the court decide on the 26th November.
“The net effect is the same”. Oh no Mr Joannis, the net effect is most definitely not the same. We are certain that neither Mr Jackson nor Mr Duffy will allow the missing money to be written off. Neither will they allow the directors of Carlauren Group to avoid investigation and/or prosecution. They certainly will not allow the existing directors to remain in control.
It is important that you all understand that if Carl Jackson and Phillip Duffy are appointed that we will have no control anymore and what they decide will happen as legally appointed administrators, as a result , I have attached a simple document that needs to be signed and dated in order that I may lodge the results with the court on your behalf.
Investors would be foolish to sign the document. They would be in a far worse position. Mr Murray and Carlauren Group can have their say in court. Sean Murray is trying very hard to stop an investigation into where the money has gone.
N.B . On a private note, I apologies if I have not had the chance to call you all personally as it has taken longer than I thought calling personally, I will endeavour to continue to contacting those who I have not spoken to
Mr Joannis is phoning people because he doesn’t want to put anything in writing. They don’t have any money left and they don’t have any investment in place to deliver on their promises. Mr Joannis thinks investors are fools.
To view the previous article on Carlauren Group and John Joannis please click here.