Whittley-Ryan Lied to the Court
At the recent hearing for St Helier Capital Management Ltd the petitioner was intending to highlight that Simon Whittley-Ryan lied to the court in the Witness Statement submitted in October. The petitioner did not get the chance to inform the court as the Judge issued the Winding Up Order the moment it became clear that St Helier had not paid the debt.
On 19th October 2020, the day before the hearing, Simon Whittley-Ryan submitted a Witness Statement to the court. He has been the only director of St Helier Capital Management Ltd since it was incorporated so there can be no doubt that he is the only person who would have a full and complete knowledge of the company’s affairs. Yet he made two statements which he will have known to be untrue.
The first untrue statement was “Mr Clifft (44.12%) and Mr Smallwood (7.35%), total (51.47%), the largest preference shareholders are supporting the short adjournment to protect their and other investors interests [Exhibit I]”.
Despite claiming his statement was supported by Exhibit I, he did not file Exhibit I with the court. That’s not a surprise because the statement was not true.
What Mr Whittley-Ryan did not know when he submitted his Witness Statement is that we know Mr Clifft.
He is in a group of investors which is taking legal action against another scam investment company we exposed. That’s really bad luck for Simon Whittley-Ryan.
We contacted Mr Clifft and asked him about Mr Whittley-Ryan’s statement. It is fair to say Mr Clifft was not very happy about it. He told us he has never agreed to support Mr Whittley-Ryan and has in fact raised his concerns about St Helier Capital Management Ltd with the authorities in the past.
We know why Simon Whittley-Ryan included Mr Clifft in his Witness Statement. He wanted to persuade the court that more than 50% of shareholders were supporting the company because it would make the Judge think that the issuance of a winding up order would be going against the wishes of the majority of shareholders. According to Mr Whittley-Ryan, Mr Clifft had a 44.12% shareholding. By claiming the company had Mr Clifft as a supporter it would make it much easier to get over the 50% level and he thought Mr Clifft would never find out.
So, according to Mr Whittley-Ryan’s false statement, the support of these two investors amounted to 51.47% of shareholders but, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Clifft wasn’t a supporter, was it actually true that they added up to 51.47% and was therefore a majority of shareholders ? NO.
The second lie was revealed in a table he provided to the court showing 12 investors and the percentage level of their shareholdings which he claimed was the total number of people who had invested in the company. The table showed that 3 of the 12 investors had been paid back and their percentage shareholdings were therefore shown as 0%. This left only 9 shareholders. One of those 3 investors who had allegedly been paid back was Mr Baker.
What Mr Whittley-Ryan did not know when he submitted his Witness Statement is that we know Mr Baker.
We know Mr Clifft AND Mr Baker. Oh dear, what rotten luck for Mr Whittley-Ryan.
We contacted Mr Baker and asked why he hadn’t told us that his investment had been repaid. He told us he has never been repaid. When we told him that Mr Whittley-Ryan had filed a Witness Statement with the court stating that the company had repaid him he contacted the petitioner’s solicitor to report that Mr Whittley-Ryan had lied to the court.
We know why Mr Whittley-Ryan lied. There were originally 12 shareholders so if all 12 were still shareholders Mr Whittley-Ryan would not reach the 50% level he needed. He had to make it look like a few investors had been paid off. By telling the court that 3 shareholders had been paid back it increased the percentage shareholdings of Mr Clifft and Mr Smallwood. If any one of those 3 ‘paid off’ shareholders had been left on the genuine list then Mr Whittley-Ryan would not have reached the 50% mark. There was another reason for Mr Whittley-Ryan lying about this. The table made it look like the company had honoured its commitments to some investors when the reality is that it had not.
It is one thing to lie to investors and business partners because Mr Whittley-Ryan has made a career out of that, but it is an entirely different matter to lie to a court.
Now that St Helier Capital Management Ltd has been wound up we will be writing to the Official Receiver providing a copy of the Witness Statement. The Official Receiver will have access to the bank records and can check Mr Whittley-Ryan’s Witness Statement against the bank account transactions. Hopefully the Official Receiver will report any offence to the Police.
Our previous article on St Helier Capital Management Ltd can be viewed here.