Insolvency And Law Scam Collapsing – Part Two

This is the second article on the Insolvency And Law Scam perpetrated on investors whose loan note contracts prohibited the loan notes from being assigned without the written permission of the companies. If you have not read Part One, or you would like to refresh your memory, THIS LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO INSOLVENCY AND LAW SCAM – PART ONE.

In the previous article we quoted statements made by Insolvency And Law Ltd to 79^th Group investors informing them how I&L claimed to have reviewed their documentation and proclaimed to investors that their loan notes could be assigned to I&L for a fee. It is also important to highlight another statement made by I&L which is disgraceful and shows the extent to which they will go to prey on victims of investment fraud. Insolvency And Law issued emails stating:

“You currently stand to recover up to 70% of your Loan Note’s value, which is a significantly more favourable outcome compared to 0% which is the likely result if no action is taken”. [I&L highlighted the words in bold].

Insolvency And Law made this statement more than six weeks after the City Of London Police (“COLP”) had raided the 79^th Group office and the homes of three directors and one senior employee. This had been reported widely in the Press and on TV. SEE THIS LINK FOR THE COLP ANNOUNCEMENT

COLP had confiscated 79^th Group records, documents and the 79^th Group servers. Insolvency And Law was also aware that insolvency proceedings had been started against some of the 79^th Group loan note companies. There wasn’t any chance whatsoever that any money would be paid out, let alone investors “currently standing to recover up to 70% of their Loan Note’s value”.

We assume the 70% figure was used because I&L’s unlawful assignments required 6% to be paid upfront + 24% to be paid to them from investor recoveries i.e a total of 30%. They were basically saying they could recover up to 100% of an investor’s money. They’re a heartless group of con artists.

This is Peter Murray who is still controlling Insolvency And Law from his base in Nigeria. Does this look like someone you can trust?

Peter Murray who now describes himself as “a consultant”. Normally, when a director resigns and transfers all his shares to a front-man and an associate, it is a sign that he is under investigation or threat of financial penalty and is moving his assets beyond reach.

79^th Group Investor’s Legal Action Against Insolvency And Law

A 79^th Luxury Living Five Ltd investor filed proceedings in court against Insolvency And Law to recover his 6% upfront fee and to have the Deed Of Assignment contract declared null and void. His circumstances were unique because 48 hours after signing the Deed Of Assignment he contacted I&L to cancel it. His claim was based on a consumer’s right to a 14-day cooling-off period and a right to cancel under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. We assisted this investor free of charge to bring his case and to deal with Insolvency And Law. We do not like recovery room scammers who prey on scam victims when they are at their most distressed and are vulnerable to dishonest con artists.

The investor, who we shall call Alex, filed a claim in the Small Claims Court because the upfront fee paid to I&L was less than £10,000. This is the maximum limit for a Small Claims Court. We recommend other investors consider following this route because it is easy, cheap, you can represent yourself, and both sides pay their own costs. LINK TO MAKING A CLAIM IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT.

Alex’s hearing was scheduled for a court close to where he lived. That’s another bonus of using a Small Claims Court – you can select a court close to home.

Prior to the hearing the court arranged an online mediation to save the court’s time because many disputes can be settled at mediation without having to attend court. Alex attended but Insolvency And Law did not. That is not surprising because nobody from Insolvency And Law wanted to be recorded lying to the mediator. The mediation outcome would have been a foregone conclusion in favour of Alex. That would have prevented I&L from their aim of dragging things out as long as possible to test Alex’s resilience, whilst they threatened him with high costs to scare him into withdrawing his claim (even though they would have known that each side pays its own costs).

The key points of Alex’s case was that he signed the Deed Of Assignment and paid the upfront fee late in the afternoon of Friday 18^th April 2025 (Good Friday in the UK and a bank holiday). 48 hours later, on Easter Sunday, he sent an email cancelling the contract and requesting his payment be refunded. Insolvency And Law’s response was to refuse to recognise the cancellation and to refuse the refund. They never pay up without their victims having to take action through the courts. They expanded on their reasons for refusal in Robert Dene Smith’s Defendant Response submitted to the court. In it he gave a Statement Of Truth that Alex was not entitled to a refund under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because, in his words:

“On 18^th April 2025 work began without delay and included preparation of collective recovery documentation and legal engagement. By 20^th April 2025 material work had already been carried out in reliance on the Claimant’s instruction and fee payment. Accordingly, cancellation rights had already lapsed, and the Claimant is not entitled to a refund”. That’s a bare-faced lie.

There’s no way a mediator or a Judge would have accepted that argument for one moment. That’s why I&L did not turn up to the mediation. We pointed out that the Insolvency And Law website clearly displays the company’s opening hours as “Monday to Friday 9-5 (excluding bank holidays and weekends)”.

Insolvency And Law did not do any work at all because they were closed for four days. This is supported by the fact that Alex received no communication confirming receipt of his signed contract, did not receive a counter-signed contract from I&L, and did not receive any communication until Tuesday 22^nd April 2025 when I&L returned to work. It is shameful how Insolvency And Law is allowed to keep lying in court proceedings. This is the fourth time that we know of. They do this because they think their opponent will back down under their threats and the case will never be heard in court.

After the submission of Robert Dene Smith’s statement, Insolvency And Law continued with the threats that Alex would face thousands of pounds in legal costs when he loses. They told him he would have to pay their solicitor and barrister costs and he was certain to lose. That was also a lie. I&L had not incurred any legal costs because they were using AI to make their case. Alex ignored these emails and was determined for the hearing to go ahead.

One week before the hearing Insolvency And Law wrote to Alex seeking a settlement. They did not admit it, but they knew their lies would be exposed in court and Alex would win. Insolvency And Law claimed the reason was that they wanted to avoid unnecessary costs. They offered to repay an amount equal to the 6% upfront fee Alex had paid, but emphasised it was not a refund of the payment, they were not accepting liability and the payment was ‘Subject To Contract’.

In addition to the offer of payment they stated they would give up their right to hold themselves out as the creditor of his debt and would have no right to any recovery under POCA. However, they insisted that Alex accept that the Deed Of Assignment remain in force. They included an addendum to the original Deed Of Assignment for him to sign.

Alex refused to consider any proposal or sign anything until a payment of his upfront fee had been made. Insolvency And Law paid him the money plus a contribution towards his costs whilst still maintaining that it was not a refund of his upfront fee.

However, between the time of his response to I&L and the time that payment was made, Alex was made aware of the illegality of the Deed Of Assignment contracts. After payment was received he informed them that he could not agree to sign an addendum to a contract he had cancelled six months earlier and he was also not prepared to enter into an illegal contract which Insolvency And Law intended to use to commit a criminal act to demand money from third parties. He advised I&L he would hold the payment in abeyance until after the court had given judgement.

Insolvency And Law contacted the court without Alex’s permission and told it that the claim had been settled with no admission of liability and requested that the hearing be vacated (i.e cancelled and the matter be considered closed). Alex then contacted the court to tell them that it had not been settled and he wanted the court to give judgement. Unfortunately, Alex was too late and the court clerks had already delisted the hearing. Alex pressed his case and the clerks have now agreed to relist the case and schedule a date for a new hearing. We are waiting to hear the date because we want to see who is going to turn up and argue I&L’s case.

Alex wrote to everyone at Insolvency And Law issuing a legal warning to them. It was sent before he was informed that the hearing had been cancelled. It provides a useful template for other victims who assigned their loan notes or debts to follow.

Investors do not want to be caught up in allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and obtaining money by deception from third parties. All 79^th Group, HSG and Godwin investors are in the same position. Alex’s letter is copied below.

Letter to Insolvency And Law

Dear Mr Smith, copied to Britena Clarke and Peter Murray,

I refer to Britena Clarke’s email of 15th October 2025. Firstly, I cancelled the Deed Of Assignment on Sunday 20th April 2025 so Ms Clarke is incorrect when referring to continuing a working relationship between myself and Insolvency & Law. There was no working relationship.

PAYMENT

I confirm receipt of a payment from you which I hold in abeyance pending the outcome of the court case. You made this in advance of any agreement between us and you have specified the payment is made ‘Subject to Contract’. No contract has been agreed and the inference is that the payment is refundable to you unless I agree to your terms. As I pointed out in my email I would need to be fully satisfied of the terms, benefits and proposed actions before entering into any contractual arrangement or settlement with you.

My claim with the court is that the contract was cancelled and that you owe me the debt and have no right to try to enforce the cancelled contract or to attach conditions to a payment of the debt. You made it clear in your without prejudice correspondence that the payment WAS NOT a payment of the debt. Your email to the court requesting that the hearing is vacated is therefore deliberately and intentionally misleading and I do not agree to vacate the hearing. I will be informing the court and providing a copy of this email for consideration at the hearing.

LEGAL POSITION OF THE DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENT

Since my email to you of last week I have received new information related to your business model of 79th Group victims like myself entering into assignments with Insolvency & Law and the company then making claims using those assignments. Kroll Advisory is the Administrator of 79th Luxury Living Five Limited (79LL5) which as you know is the company that entered into a loan note contract with me. I understand that Kroll obtained a Kings Counsel opinion on the Insolvency & Law Deeds Of Assignment and has written to you clearly explaining why all the Deed Of Assignment contracts in all 79th Group companies are unlawful, unenforceable and cannot be used to make claims to be recognised as a creditor in administrations / liquidations, or indeed any claims at all against any third parties.

I have been informed by Kroll that they recognise me as the genuine creditor of 79LL5 and all of your assignees as the genuine creditors, not yourselves, due to the legal invalidity of all of your assignments.

I am told the KC opinion was very clear that the 79LL5 loan notes and the debts attached could not be assigned without the written permission of 79LL5 which was never given. Kroll has been asked to provide me with a copy of the letter which I will send to the court.

Kroll has given you the opportunity to prove that you obtained the necessary written permission and you have been unable to provide any evidence. That same restrictive clause was written into all the loan note contracts across the whole of 79th Group.

I do not know the position adopted by Grant Thornton for 79th Luxury Living Six (79LL6) investors but I assume they would also follow suit as the loan note contracts were identical to 79LL5 and their legal advice would match that given to Kroll.

I understand that you have a right to challenge the Administrator’s decision in court. If you have confidence in the legality of the assignments I would expect you to make that challenge. If you were to obtain a judgement in your favour I would then reconsider my position. If you do not challenge Kroll’s position I will assume that you know you would not win in court.

SERIOUS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Now that I am aware of the legal advice given to Kroll this fact alone frees me and all other 79th Group assignees from the Deeds Of Assignment (notwithstanding the fact that in my own case I had already cancelled the contract). It also prevents you from using the assignment document to make claims against any and all third parties because to do so would be an act of fraud.

In the absence of you providing me with a court judgement or a Kings Counsel opinion that the advice given to Kroll is plainly wrong, I do not feel comfortable entering into any contract with you which relates to an assignment. My fear is that I could be construed as an accomplice should you attempt to obtain money from third parties by deception.

As for yourself and your colleagues, having been informed of the legal position by Kroll I do not see how you can make any claims against any parties as the assignee of unenforceable Deeds Of Assignment in 79th Group companies without first ensuring that the assignments are legally sound. I strongly recommend that you obtain a KC opinion before attempting to claim money from third parties.

I don’t know the legal term but I believe you would be acting fraudulently by seeking to obtain payment off the back of any 79th Group assignments, having been informed in writing that they are unlawful and unenforceable. I hope you will behave responsibly and notify all the 79th Group Assignors of the contents of the letter you received from Kroll.

I want no part of any potential criminal act and I expect that all other 79th Group victims who signed assignment contracts with you would also not want to be dragged into a criminal investigation. I’ve learnt that you have also been seeking assignments from Godwin Capital investors who have the same restrictive clause in their loan note contracts. You should cease that activity because taking money from investors having been informed that the Deeds Of Assignment are unenforceable would be obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.

FORMAL LEGAL NOTICE

I have been told that in order to protect myself I should issue you with a clear legal notice which all 79th Group and Godwin investors should also consider doing in order to protect themselves.

You, your colleagues and Insolvency & Law Ltd must not under any circumstances make representations and/or claims relating to my loan notes and/or the debt attached. If any of you attempt to make any representations or claims as alleged assignee of my loan notes and/or debt you would be acting without my authority and committing a criminal act which I will report to the authorities.

THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT HEARING

On a personal level, as you clearly advised me that the payment WAS NOT A PAYMENT OF THE DEBT and that you still do not accept the Deed Of Assignment was cancelled on 20th April 2025, I will be attending the court on the 24th October 2025 and pursuing my claim against Insolvency & Law Ltd. I will inform the court that I hold a payment in abeyance and if I obtain a judgement in my favour I will apply the payment to the debt owed to me.

Yours sincerely,

HIGH STREET GROUP

Apologies to HSG investors, but due to the length of this article we will cover the latest developments in High Street Group in the next article in a few days. We will give our views on the dangers of using an insolvency practitioner recommended by Insolvency And Law Ltd. The chances are he/she will be installed to protect the interests of Insolvency And Law Ltd. It is a moot point in any case because Insolvency And Law will have represented itself in the liquidation as a substantial creditor of High Street GRP Ltd, which we now know is not a true position. Its Deed Of Assignment contracts are not lawful.

If genuine creditors decide that they wish to switch from the OR to appoint a private insolvency firm we recommend they choose one of the firms involved in 79^th Group or Godwin Capital. We can vouch they can be trusted to work on behalf of genuine creditors. In reality there is no need to switch from the Official Receiver because it is certainly possible to work with the OR to pursue claims even if the OR is not particularly keen on doing it himself. The proposal by Insolvency And Law to switch is an attempt to protect itself from claims by HSG investors to refund the payments I&L obtained by deception. The longer I&L can keep the charade going the less likely investors will demand their money back.

We note that Insolvency And Law still hasn’t got a solicitor willing to step up and endorse anything that I&L says. When you get down to the crux of the matter, investors have been trusting the word of a self-confessed con-man who is hiding out offshore and a front-man director who hasn’t got a clue about insolvency and blatantly lies to a court. When you put it like that you realise how foolish it is that people are willing to trust and pay them.

We will happily explain how HSG investors can work with the Official Receiver to achieve their aims. Any HSG investor who wishes to recover the upfront fees paid to Insolvency And Law can contact us and we will provide them with assistance free of charge. We are already putting the case together for some HSG investors and are willing to help any investor in a similar position. There is no charge.

In the next article we will also dissect Insolvency And Law’s legal arguments obtained from AI and explain why the cases they refer to are deliberately skewed to mislead investors into believing I&L’s position that the Deed Of Assignment is lawful.

To view a previous article on this website concerning Insolvency And Law Ltd please click here.

To view an article and comments on the bondreview website please click here.