Secured Energy Bonds, which collapsed in 2015 owing £7.5 million to investors, has been moved from administration to liquidation.
Throughout the administration the administrators have recovered £289,000 from SEB’s assets, and spent almost all of it. £275,000 has been spent on the costs of the administration, mostly administrators’ fees (£85k), legal fees (£107k) and VAT (£43k).
Other than shares in BlueNRGY Group, which is still attempting to regain entry to the NASDAQ market and whose value is unknown, the main item on SEB’s books is an outstanding claim of £5.8 million plus costs against Independent Portfolio Managers, the FCA-authorised company that signed off SEB’s misleading literature.
The administrators of Secured Energy Bonds have posted their latest six monthly update, which can be read in full on Companies House.
So far the administration has realised £288,579 in assets, of which £272,905 has been paid out in administration costs, predominantly the administrators' own fees and the fees of their legal advisors (and VAT). According to a schedule in Appendix B, a further £169,842 has been incurred in legal fees to date but not yet paid out. Bondholders' claims stand at £7.5 million.
About a month ago the FSCS declared Independent Portfolio Managers in default, shortly after its liquidation.
The FSCS is now inviting claims from investors in Secured Energy Bonds and Providence Bonds.
Independent Portfolio Managers, the minibond promoter which was hit by a slew of Ombudsman complaints for its role in the collapse of Secured Energy Bonds and Providence Bonds, has gone into liquidation.
When I last reported on the company in late October I overlooked that a creditor had already petitioned to wind up the company. This petition was heard two weeks ago, and the winding up commenced on 14 November.
Interestingly, the creditor who brought the petition against Independent Portfolio Managers was the administrator of Secured Energy Bonds.
Four days before it was due to be dissolved over its failure to file annual accounts with Companies House, Independent Portfolio Managers has had the strike-off action against it suspended.
The reason the action has been suspended is not known for certain, but the most likely reason is an objection by a creditor. If IPM had been dissolved, all its assets (if any) would have become property of the UK Government.
As I previously covered, in July and August IPM was ordered by the Financial Ombudsman to compensate three investors in Secured Energy Bonds for its failings in producing Secured Energy Bonds' literature, and for giving a false impression that Secured Energy Bonds were more secure than other unregulated corporate loan notes.
As I noted earlier this week, in July and August Independent Portfolio Managers had what is bound to be the first of many Financial Ombudsman complaints awarded against it, for its role in approving the literature for the collapsed Secured Energy Bond investment.
It looks highly likely that similar awards against it will follow for its role in Providence Bonds.
In June 2018, the Financial Conduct Authority cancelled IPM's permissions over an unpaid regulatory fee of £1,660 and 23 pence. The chance of IPM being able to meet the slew of claims against it, which could run into the millions, appears minimal.
Secured Energy investors still however appear confident that they'll get their money back - on the basis that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will pay up when/if IPM goes bankrupt.
Independent Portfolio Managers played a crucial role in the collapse of two unregulated bonds, Secured Energy Bonds and Providence Bonds.
Independent Portfolio Managers was an FCA-regulated company that issued financial promotions on behalf of Secured Energy and Providence. Without those FCA-regulated promotions, Secured Energy and Providence could not have been promoted to UK investors.
After those two bonds collapsed with total losses, investors in both Secured Energy and Providence made formal complaints to first Independent Portfolio Managers and then the Financial Ombudsman.
Just over a year and a quarter since it accepted the cases, The Financial Ombudsman has now began issuing rulings.