|
|
Older news in can be found in the Other News Archive.
Uvine - Bob Roche confirms that commitments can’t be met Bob Roche of Marqem told Graham Wolloff, uvine’s administrator on Friday (4th April) that ‘Marqem / BTP will NOT be able to meet its commitment to pay the first dividend this month’. It would be an understatement to say that this news is in any way surprising. Indeed it would have been astonishing had Roche phoned Wolloff to tell him that Marqem were able to keep to the repayments’ schedule. In the light of Mr Roche’s call investdrinks decided it was time to visit our old favourite, the highly esteemed Magic Meg in deepest Penge to get some odds on uvine, Marqem and on creditors’ chances of getting any of the money they are owed. On the day Meg may have been feeling rather pessimistic, as her odds won’t make pretty reading for creditors.
Vintage Wine of St Albans trial: 6th May The case bought by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) against Shameen Suleman, Stephanie Callebaut, Haroon Khatab, Donald Thomas and Richard Gunter will now open at Southwark Crown Court in London on 6th May. It had previously been scheduled to start on 31st March. The five defendants are accused of conspiracy to defraud and that they ‘between 1st January 2002 and 31st December 2005 conspired together and with others to defraud North American investors by dishonestly inducing them to provide monies for short term high yield, and low risk investments in wine’. Jina Roe, an SFO spokesperson, said: “The Serious Fraud Office is continuing to investigate a serious or complex fraud in relation to Vintage Hallmark plc, in liquidation.” As yet no charges have been made. Alpha Invest Worldwide and Classic Bordeaux Wines Ltd This heralds the return of Timothy Spenser Dunton (ex-Bordeaux Vintners Ltd that went bust on 27th April 2006) and Spyros Constantinos (ex-Bordeaux Wine Consultants Ltd that went bust on 19th July 2006). Constantinos has been a director of Classic Bordeaux Wine Ltd since 22nd April 1998, while Dunton is listed as the owner of the Alpha Invest Worldwide (alphainvestworldwide.com) and Classic Bordeaux Wines Ltd (classicbordeauxwines.com) sites. The Classic Bordeaux Wines site claims that ‘Classic Bordeaux Wines was established in 1998 and continues to offer what we believe is an unrivalled service to our clients.’ Although it is true that the company was founded on 22nd April 1998, it changed its name from Constant Enterprises Limited on 28th January 2002, so it is unlikely to have been offering wine investments since 1998 as the site implies. Unfortunately ‘the unrivalled service’ does not include complying with UK Company Law - the annual return has been outstanding since 20th May 2007. ‘The unrivalled service’ does, however, include offering to some BVI’s ex-clients of BVI to sell their wine for a flat fee of £345. One client was offered a minimum total sale that came to a little under £14,000. At the time the same wines could be purchased (from cheapest prices on wine searcher) for a little over £17,000 - a difference of £3208. Obviously it would depend upon the commission charged if the client decided to sell their wine elsewhere but, in the event, the client decided that this was a deal that they could decline. Much of the text on the Classic Bordeaux Wines site bears a remarkable similarity to Wikipedia’s entry on Bordeaux and its wines. Alpha Invest Worldwide, which is not a limited company, claims that it ‘is an Investment House specialising in Alternative Investments; our aim is to cherry-pick the best performing Investment vehicles from markets world-wide. Our sole concern is maximising the profitability of our clients’ investment portfolios.’ Alpha Invest Worldwide operates from a call centre at Witchford, Ely, UK as well as an address in Marbella, Spain. uvine - creditors to be disappointed It looks increasingly odds on that Marqem Ltd run by Canadian businessman Bob Roche will fail to meet its commitment to the schedule of repayments to Uvine’s creditors. Both Marqem Ltd and its parent BTP Ltd of 3rd Floor Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London SE1 7NQ are in the process of being struck off by UK Companies House. Marqem Ltd’s annual return has been overdue since 27.6.2007 and its accounts since 31.10.2007, while BTP’s return has been overdue since 19.9.2007 and the accounts since 31.10.2007. Equally there is no sign of the uvine trading platform being relaunched. The website still claims as it has done so since the end of October 2007 that the site will be relaunched in November. Under the agreement with the administrators Marqem Ltd are due to repay creditors 80% of their debt with the first repayment due on 30th April 2008. In return Marqem bought uvine's goodwill, intellectual property rights and customer database for a nominal sum. It is difficult to see what Roche will have gained from this transaction as investdrinks understands that a number of the creditors asked for their details to be removed from the database; nor can their have been much residual goodwill following uvine’s collapse. Wine Traders International Ltd The company had a complete change of management in August 2007. However, this has no improved its record for filing documents required by UK company law with Companies House. The annual return has been overdue since 7.10.2007. Miller Romi Ltd, the company secretary, has also failed to file its latest return on time (overdue 13.10.2007) or its accounts (overdue 31.1.2008). It has also moved its trading address from Manchester to Leatherhead. In mid-February 2008 investdrinks was informed by someone who had been cold called by Wine Traders International that they had been offered a case of Mouton-Rothschild 2006 en primeur for £5800 a case plus their 25% up-front commission - a total of £7250. On 14.2.2008 Vintage Holdings was offering a case for £3825 making Wine Traders International 90% more expensive. As Wine Trader International’s prices are uncompetitive before they add their 25%upfront commission, investdrinks’s advice is not to buy wine from them. Buying en primeur from them is doubly risky the company’s failure to file their annual return on time - a criminal offence under UK company law. If they can’t organise themselves to file documents on time, will they be able to make the necessary arrangements to order and pay for en primeur Bordeaux? This risk is compounded by their failure of their company secretary, Miller Romi Ltd, to file either their annual return or accounts. There must be a chance that both companies will have been struck off for non-compliance before the 2006 Bordeaux’s are shipped. Bordeaux Advisory: advice to customers from London City Bond As around 3000 cases belonging to customers of Bordeaux Advisory are currently stored at London City Bond (LCB) in an account run by JWM Vintners Ltd (sole director - Jonnie May), investdrinks invited London City Bond to set out the options with their costs. Customers should be aware that other bonded warehouses, in particular Octavian, also offer private customers reserves. However it may make sense to remain within the LCB system. Whatever your decision investdrinks’ strong advice is to open your own private account if you intend to keep your wines in bond in the UK, then you will have control over your wine. LCB’s advice: It occurs to us that many may have purchased wines as investment and may not want to take delivery, or they may not have space providing suitable conditions for storage, or they may not be living in the UK and do not want to incur the significant costs of shipping. Wines held at London City Bond are held in bond in the UK. In other words the UK duty and VAT have not been paid. When wines are cleared from bond in the UK the excise duty of £16.02 per case of 12 bottles for EU still table wine not exceeding 15% is paid (technically £177.99 per hectolitre) and then VAT (currently 17.5%) is payable on the total cost of the wine including excise duty. However the wine may be sold while still in bond. This is attractive for investors who are not registered for VAT as no VAT is payable on the sale. Sales in bond are technically outside the scope of VAT. For those who wish to ship their wine to another EU country they can ship their wine in bond, in other words without having to pay any UK duty or VAT. The wine, then, becomes liable for any domestic taxes in the destination country. It is important to note that wines may not be moved under bond in the UK unless the transporter has a Movement Guarantee with HM Revenue & Customs. Some transporters from Continental Europe may not be aware of the need for a Movement Guarantee in the UK. In summary therefore wines may be moved between tax warehouses in the EU. Such movements are controlled by an Administrative Accompanying Document (AAD). The despatching tax warehouse raises this and the receiving tax warehouse returns a copy as evidence that the wine has reached its destination. If individual customers wish to collect wines themselves from the UK and take them back to their EU country they cannot transport them in bond unless covered by a Movement Guarantee. If UK duty and VAT have been paid then they are free to transport them and will not be liable for duty or VAT in their EU country provided they accompany the wine on import and provided that the wines are only for their personal consumption. If a client wishes to pay UK duty and VAT this should be paid to whoever the depositor is, in this case JWM Vintners, JWM Vintners will in turn pay London City Bond. Some may wish to continue to hold their wine under bond in the UK. The only 100% secure way of doing this is to open their own account directly with a tax warehouse such as London City Bond. London City Bond has a dedicated warehouse for holding customer reserves called Vinotheque. For full details including charges please see vinotheque.co.uk. Or as FAQs. Q. If I do not live in the UK can I collect my wines from London City Bond myself and return home with them? Q. If I want my wines transported to my home outside the UK how do I go about this? Q. If I nevertheless want to collect my wines how do I go about this? Q. If I do not want to incur the costs of moving my wine but wish to continue to hold it under bond in the UK can this be done? Q. Would my wines be insured at Vinotheque? Q. Are my wines secure at Vinotheque? Q. Is there a cost for moving my wine to Vinotheque? Q. I note that London City Bond add VAT to all their charges. Do I have to pay this as I live outside the UK? Q. Can I sell my wine under bond in the UK. investdrinks understands that Tradewines has decided to delay the imposition of its swingeing storage charges by a month and introduce them at the end of November 2007. As the wines will presumably still be stored in Jonnie May’s JWM Vintners Ltd account at LCB, investdrinks wonders whether Mr May will receive a slice of the exorbitant storage fees that Tradewines proposes charging. investdrinks continues to be bemused at how BCV and JWM Vintners Ltd, apparently reputable companies, have got involved with the shadowy Tradewines - whose only known address is a mailbox in central London - and that they have allowed themselves to be uncomfortably close to the rapacious fraud perpetrated by Bordeaux Advisory. investdrinks has been very surprised and extremely disappointed that Jonnie May, the sole director of JWM Vintners Ltd, has not been more helpful to the BA customers who have contacted him preferring just to refer them to Tradewines - only known address a mailbox in central London. I can’t think this is doing much for the reputation of Jonnie May and JWM Vintners Ltd. Would you buy wine from a man, who now knows full well that the owners of the 3000 cases in his account, on which he charges a 10% commission on the storage charges, paid through the nose for their wines and who apparently isn’t prepared to lift a finger to help them? Fraud trial: Vintage Wine of St Albans In a case bought by the Serious Fraud Office Shameen Suleman, Stephanie Callebaut, Haroon Khatab, Donald Thomas and Richard Gunter were charged in March 2007 with conspiracy to defraud. The company, now dissolved, ran a high yield alcohol investment scheme, which included members of US medical practitioners against its clients. At a recent pre-trial hearing the full trial was set for 31st March 2008 at London’s Southwark Crown Court. investdrinks understands that the SFO is continuing to investigate Vintage Hallmark plc, an associated company that had imposing premises in St James’s Street - one of London’s most expensive and smartest shopping streets. An SFO spokesperson said: “The Serious Fraud Office is investigating a serious or complex fraud in relation to Vintage Hallmark plc, in liquidation.” As yet no charges have been made. Craig Dean told to cough up Craig Dean, who was sentenced to three years imprisonment in March 2001 for fraud, lost his appeal against a confiscation order on 24th October in London’s High Court. Dean was convicted for his part in the House of Delacroix scam. Set up in 1996 the company was based in Amsterdam and sold over-priced Champagne on the pretence that there would be a shortage of Champagne. In 2002 Dean was ordered to pay £133,692. This sum was calculated on unexplained cash withdrawals from Helmsley SPRL (“HS”), a Cognac investment company Dean set up with offices in Belgium and Madeira following the collapse of the House of Delacroix in August 1997. Dean’s claim that Ing Yang Oei, the manager of Helmsley in Belgium, removed the cash was rejected. The judges described Dean’s evidence as “incredible” and “absurd”. Dean was ordered to pay the outstanding £133,692 within six months or face 18 months imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay £10,000 towards the defence costs and £10,000 towards the prosecution costs, payable within nine months. Tradewines tightens the Bordeaux Advisory screw Clients of Bordeaux Advisory have recently received the following notification from Tradewines. It is believed that it was sent out by Ricky Wydmanski, who is believed to be the key figure in Tradewines. It appears to be an attempt to squeeze more money out of BA’s customers who have already been royally fleeced by BA. investdrinks’ comments are bold italics. NOTIFICATION DOCUMENT To All Customers of Bordeaux Advisory This is to duly notify you of the following:
There may be no direct affiliation between Tradewines and Bordeaux Advisory but there appears to be a close commercial association as Tradewines have access to BA’s client lists. Tradewines has told investdrinks that Bordeaux Advisory gave them ‘instructions to arrange storage of the wines on behalf of its clients’.
As storage has been delegated to JWM Vintners Ltd in the UK and BCV in France and that BA clients appear to have paid (usually through the nose) for their stocks, it is far from clear whether Tradewines has any rights at all over the stock.
Either Borderac Cru et Vins (BCV) or JWM Vintners Ltd. JWM Vintners has an account with London City Bond with around 3000 cases of BA clients wine in it. London City Bond (LCB), a legitimate storage company, are an entirely innocent party here.
You will also need to pay to us any duty/VAT/delivery charges attached to your wine and, in the event that there are any unpaid amounts in relation to the wine, Tradewines will need to seek legal advice as regards reservation of title rights and ownership where wine title is not claimed and storage charges are not paid. As the BA wines are in bond it is not clear what duty and vat charges could be outstanding unless, of course, BA clients decide to remove their wines from bond. Then there would also be delivery charges. Clients would have the option to set up their own accounts either with London City Bond or other bond. Tradewines does not appear to hold any wines. As Tradewines arranged storage on behalf of the clients of Bordeaux Advisory, surely they already hold customers’ details. Tradewines will pay storage charges to the end of October. Beyond that date there will be a charge of €2.50 per case of wine per week or any part of one week until it is agreed to be released. €2.50 a week is an absurd storage charge - the equivalent of €130 (£90.56) a year. Not clear whether this figure includes vat. LCB’s annual charge to their private customers is £12.69 a case including vat. Given the number of cases in the JWM Vintners account it would seem very likely that May has negotiated a more favourable rate. Tradewines may not be directly affiliated with Bordeaux Advisory but has clearly has the same policy of overcharging. This raises the interesting question of who is going to pay the storage charges for unclaimed wine after 30th October. Will BCV continue to pay invoices from JMW Vintners Ltd? Will Tradewines pay invoices from BCV - if that is the route used? Presumably not if they are stopping from 30th October. Finally you should note that due to the time and administration costs to which Tradewines has been and will be put to resolve the issues referable to the Bordeaux Advisory situation there will be added to your account an administration charge of €75 which, as per the other terms above, will be payable to us prior to any wines being released and shipped. This is a “one-off” charge payable by each client in each claim notwithstanding the quantity of wine stored for any one client. Not content with levying very high storage charges clients are to be hit with an administrative charge. London mailboxes must be more expensive than I imagined. In other communications Tradewines has assured BA clients that all of the wine ordered has been bought. BCV has told investdrinks that they have sold no wine to Tradewines since September 2006, which raises questions about wines ordered by BA customers after that date. Until it is known what wines are in storage in Bordeaux and London, there must be a significant possibility that BA did not buy all the wines that their customers ordered. If the wine is not claimed and paid for by the 31st October 2008 then we will consider the wine unclaimed and forfeit, seize the same and exercise, in conjunction with the storage agents, rights of bailees and/or rights of lien over the goods by way of sale/disposition. Tradewines has no control over the wines stored in the JWM Vintners account at London City Bond. The control lies solely with Jonnie May of JWM Vintners Ltd. May has the right to dispose of the wines should he wish to do so but it is hard to see what basis Tradewines themselves could establish a lien over the wines. investdrinks’ advice is that BA clients should weigh up carefully whether it is worth paying out any further money on their wine. It would appear that very few of the wines bought have any investment potential and from the evidence so far they have been so grossly overpriced by Bordeaux Advisory as to make the possibility of profit negligible. wine-searcher.com is a very good site to see what price your wine sells for elsewhere bearing in mind that the customary commission for selling wine is 10%. If you live far away from the UK it may well not be worth the charges to have the wines shipped to you. It may be worth trying to sell your wines but bear in mind that this is only likely to realise a small fraction of what you paid for them - a sum further diminished by Tradewines €75 administrative charge and their swingeing storage charges. Please note that we are a supplier and arrange shipments, storage and deal with attendant costs and expenses. We do not sell stored wines on behalf of clients or third parties. Tradewines are probably all too aware that many of the wines held are of little value. Given that Tradewines’ sole known address is a mailbox in Knightsbridge, London it is far from clear what they actually do. investdrinks has asked Yorick d’Alton, managing director of BCV, and Jonnie May, the sole director of JWM Vintners Ltd for contact details for Tradewines and received no response. I can only presume that they either are not prepared divulge this information (I wonder why?) or the Knightsbridge mailbox is indeed the only address. Subject to the above Tradewines will use all reasonable endeavours to locate, secure and ship the wines you have paid for but, inevitably, subject to its own legal and financial rights in this matter. Around 3000 cases are held at London City Bond in an account owned by JWM Vintners and controlled by Jonnie May. Tradewines does not access to this account. It is far from certain whether it is worth the expense of having your wines delivered to your country Yours faithfully, TRADEWINES Given the shadowy nature of Tradewines, investdrinks suggests that BA clients may well be better off contacting BCV (borderac.com) and JWM Vintners - 01223 891 122 or Jwmvintners@aol.com - direct. Clients should not contact London City Bond, who has no power to release wine from the JWM Vintners account. Only Jonnie May can authorize that. Another letter from Tradewines ‘Dear Sir/Madam, Recently you may or may not have read that the AFM (Authorization Financial Markets) have black listed Bordeaux Advisory. Due to this, Bordeaux Advisory was unable to carry on trading and has unfortunately had to close its doors through no fault of its own. There have been press reports insinuating that Bordeaux Advisory has funds in reserve, however the truth is that Bordeaux Advisory is effectively bankrupt due to the negative onslaught by the AFM and by the lawyers wishing to feather their own nests with clients money to fight a case against a financial institution that never existed. Bordeaux Advisory was a wine trader, nothing more than that and lawyers have been informed of this. Your money was spent on wine and you are the owner of this wine. Your wine purchase is safe and can be delivered to you or alternatively you can instruct another wine trader to deal with your wine purchase We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and wish you success in future. To facilitate delivery please contact the agent for the storage facilities Tradewines Although the AFM warning was very welcome, it would have been good if this unpleasant and rapacious scam had been closed down years ago. I can well believe that Bordeaux Advisory now has no funds. Given their huge mark ups, this surely means that either funds have been removed from the company or it was incompetently run. Nor is it yet clear whether Bordeaux Advisory bought all the wine its clients ordered. Bordeaux Advisory disappears? Keen followers of Bordeaux Advisory (BA) will have noted that its website (bordeauxadvisory.com) now shows as a Plesk™ default page. It also seems impossible to reach BA on the phone. On 3rd September the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) ‘issued a warning to investors not to respond to offers of investment objects from Bordeaux Advisory B.V. The AFM believes that Bordeaux Advisory is offering and has offered investment objects in the Netherlands without either holding the required licence or being subject to an exemption.’ ‘Bordeaux Advisory B.V. uses the following address to offer investment objects:Z.I. Letzebuerger Heck, L-3844 Schifflange, Luxembourg, and it previously used the following address: Orlyplein 85 Busitel 1, 1043 DS Amsterdam, the Netherlands.’ ‘Investors who have any queries or complaints can also contact the Financial Markets Information Line on 0900 5400 540 (5 eurocents per minute) or from abroad +31 20 797 3715.’ The full text can be found at: afm.nl/consumer/default.ashx?DocumentId=9939 It would appear that Bordeaux Advisory has ceased to operate. investdrinks understands that the French police are now investigating. Unsurprisingly Bordeaux Advisory’s disappearance has alarmed some of Bordeaux Advisory’s clients. investdrinks has been contacted recently by a client in China, who has bought several cases from BA including some Vieux Château des Templiers 2003 from Pomerol. This is the second wine of Château Rouget and is an exclusivity from Bordeaux Crus et Vins (BCV). In August 2007 the client was charged €2965 per case. “The correct market price paid by an importer for a small Pomerol is around €10 to €12,” Yorick d’Alton, the managing director of BCV, has told investdrinks. Thus the buying the 2003 Templiers from BCV would be between €120-€144 a case. Certainly nowhere near the €2965 charged by BA and this wine has no investment potential. The Chinese client also bought a case of Château Lascombes 1996 Margaux for €1755 and one of Château Caronne Sainte Gemme 1996 Haut-Médoc for €1425. From wine-searcher Bijou Bottles list the Lascombes for €357.50, while everywine.co.uk lists the Caronne St Gemme for €187.75. Although the client was severely over-charged on all the wines bought from Bordeaux Advisory, it is interesting to note that the most eye-watering mark-up is on the Templiers - the least well-known. investdrinks has contacted Jon Reeves, the sales director of BCV. Reeves told investdrinks, although they had sold wines to Tradewines BCV had sold no wine to Tradewines since September 2006. BCV had had no contact with Bordeaux Advisory. Curiously in a general letter sent out to clients in September 2007 by Bordeaux Advisory advising them where to find their wine a J Reeves is listed as the agent for the storage for Tradewines at Suite 5043, 19 Cheval Place, London SW17 1EW. Clients are told that their wine will either be at London City Bond (LCB) or at Schenker-BTL in Bordeaux. However, Reeves told investdrinks that he had never been part of Tradewines and that the use of his name was “completely false”. The storage arrangements on behalf of Bordeaux Advisory at London City Bond appear curiously complicated. Bordeaux Advisory does not have an account at LCB. Their clients’ wines are stored in an account run by JWM Vintners Ltd (www.jwmvintners.com), which is run by Jonnie May (contact details: tel: 01223-891122, fax: 01223-891124, email: jwmvintners@aol.com). investdrinks understands that May invoices BCV for the LCB storage charges adding 10% for his services. investdrinks understands from d’Alton that ‘BCV has an arrangement with Tradewines to store the wines some months before being shipped to LCB, because we are not allowed to store too long (VAT rules)’. investdrinks understands there are some 3000 cases in the client account at LCB run by JWM Vintners. Apparently LCB have been contacted by a number of concerned clients of Bordeaux Advisory. I trust that the ownership of the cases is clear otherwise Jonnie May is likely to have a busy job sorting everything out and will certainly be earning his 10%, especially when Bordeaux Advisory’s clients realise that many of the wines are worth only a small fraction of what they paid for them and some have no investment potential at all. A further curiosity is that Tradewines does have an account with LCB - apparently set up in 2005 - but it does not appear to be used to store BA clients’ wines. investdrinks understands that Tradewines has been in contact with LCB, who were informed that Tradewines would soon be sending out a letter to all Bordeaux Advisory’s clients. The representative from Tradewines assured LCB that Bordeaux Advisory had bought all the wine that their clients had ordered. This appears to suggest that there is a fairly close relationship between Tradewines and Bordeaux Advisory. Quite why a legitimate Bordeaux négociant would want to be involved in arranging storage in the UK on behalf of Bordeaux Advisory against whom the Dutch financial authorities have issued a public warning is unclear. investdrinks understands that it is normally the purchaser (here Tradewines), who would customarily arrange transport and storage. Uvine - a relaunch? The uvine.com site currently displays the following message MARQEM LTD., having recently acquired the assets of www.uvine.com, will introduce THE PREMIER INTERNET TRADING PLATFORM FOR FINE WINE. LAUNCH DATE - mid-October, 2007 As requested investdrinks contacted Bob Roche back in late September but unfortunately hasn’t heard back from him yet but doubtless he is very busy so I remain hopeful that will hear something soon. A phoenix rises in Godalming - investdrinks was recently been ask to assist an American client of PMH Wines Ltd, a company formerly based at 113 High Street, Godalming but now in liquidation. Its sole director was 46-year-old Paul Havers. In the summer of 2005 the client ordered 11 cases of Bordeaux en primeur 2004 for a total of £3270. He received various acknowledgments by email from Paul Havers, in particular a letter dated 10th August 2005. The client was given a password and was able keep track of his order on line. The 2004s would normally be delivered at the end of 2006 or the beginning of 2007. PMH Wines Ltd was set up on 5th August 2003. The accounts to 31st July 2004, the only ones filed, show a turnover of £51,697 and a small deficit of £1729. In the summer of 2005 the company offered Bordeaux 2004 en primeur - ‘will be offering the pick of well-priced Bordeaux 2004s at keen prices, starting from £85 per dozen’. PMH Wines Ltd, however, appears to have run into financial problems. investdrinks is aware of 11 county court judgments starting from £709 in Clerkenwell, London to 21st March 2007 for £580 in Stockport - a total of £11,761. On 26th April 2006 there was a judgment in Northampton for £6622. Five days later on May 1st 2006 Paul Havers signed an application to have PMH Wines Ltd struck off by Companies House on the grounds that it had not traded for three months. He also resigned as the sole director and his wife, Monika Havers, resigned as company secretary. On 25th May Havers formed a new company called The Wine Barrel. He and his wife Monika became directors. Currently Paul Havers and 74-year-old Weronika Jastrzebski are the two company directors. At present The Wine Barrel is in breach of company law as it has no company secretary as Secretariat Business Services Ltd of Folkestone resigned on 17th August 2007. On 14th June Havers sent the following notification to various members of the press, especially those who had websites and listed PMH Wines in their links directories: ‘The current site of www.pmhwines.co.uk is being changed to our new and re-branded site The Wine Barrel, the new URL is thewinebarrel.co.uk. The change takes effect as of 19th June. Would you please remove the reference to PMH Wines and amend your links page to reflect the change (currently a Welcome Page is displayed until the domain is propagated). If possible a new logo, which is enclosed can be added to replace the old one.’ The old details were: PMH Wines Ltd To be replaced with: Paul Havers The new company was to trade from the same premises but with different phone numbers. On 30th June 2006 Paul Havers did not renew his registration of the site (pmhwines.co.uk). His ISP transferred the registration to Stefan Rooyackers, who appears to be a Dutch insurance salesman, on 1st July 2006. investdrinks understands that the signage of the shop in Godalming was changed from PMH Wines Ltd to The Wine Barrel. I understand that this may have been as early as February 2006 during the filming of The Holiday, a romantic comedy, in Godalming in Feb 2006. Conceivably the filmmakers may have asked after for a name change - apparently other Godalming shops changed their signage temporarily to fit in with the film. It appears that the two companies stocked the same range of wines with the existing stock transferred to the new company. Later in 2006 the shop closed and The Wine Barrel moved to its current address 7 Gower Park, Sandhurst, Berks, GU47 0ZA. Tel: 0845 257 8058 On 12th July 2006 the application to strike-off PMH Wines was received by Companies House and processed on 13th July. Similarly the resignations of Paul and Monika Havers were received on 7th July and processed on 13th July. However the company went into voluntary liquidation on 10th August 2006. Robert Thompson of Rendell Thompson, 32 Aldershot Road, Fleet, Hants GU51 3NN (tel: 01252-816636) was appointed liquidator. On 23rd August 2006 Paul Havers swore and signed a statement of affairs drawn up by the liquidator for PMH Wines Ltd based on information disclosed by Paul Havers. The company’s deficiency is given as £57,398.13 with only two creditors - Hallgarten Wines Ltd for £7398.13 and P. Havers for £50,000. No secured or preferential creditors were listed and it was claimed that the company had no assets. Havers swore that this was ‘to the best of my knowledge and belief a full true and complete statement’ as to the affairs of PMH Wines Ltd. In the first part of 2007 the liquidator filed his report on PMH Wines and on 31st May ceased to be the liquidator - investdrinks understands he is also owed money. The report raised concerns that Paul Havers had not made a full disclosure because another six creditors had come forward. However, the Insolvency Service decided not to take any further action. Back in 2006 the American client was concerned when he noticed that the company name had changed and he apparently contacted Paul Havers, who assured him that all would be well and that he would receive his wine. However, the client later became very concerned when he found he could no longer track his ordered wines and found it very difficult to get hold of Paul Havers. In September 2007 he appointed an agent to look into what had happened and he also contacted ASDW (Association of Small Direct Wine Merchants), who put him in contact with investdrinks. I understand from the American client that he received three emails from Paul Havers (two on 23rd September and one on 24th September) in response to a request for information about his 2004 wines. In all three emails Paul Havers told his client that there was no connection between the two companies - The Wine Barrel Ltd and PMH Wines Ltd. In those of the 23rd I understand that PH denies any knowledge of PMH Wines Ltd and points out that The Wine Barrel Ltd. was formed almost a year after the client’s receipt of 4th July 2005. PMH Wines has only dealt on the internet since its foundation (PH appears to have forgotten that The Wine Barrel Ltd was based at 113 High Street, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 1AQ during part of 2006 - JB). The Wine Barrel does not deal in nor does it intend to deal in Bordeaux futures due apparently to the happenings in the Bordeaux market. In the email sent very early on 24th September I understand that the US client was told that The Wine Barrel’s solicitors had now done a check at PMH Wines Ltd was in liquidation. The client was asked to remove any adverse comments from any forums, otherwise they would face legal action. I understand that The Wine Barrel Ltd declined, on the advice of their solicitors (obviously a 24-hour service as the client advises me that it was sent at 5.58 am Monday morning), they will enter into no further correspondence. The text of these emails can be found here. Paul Havers has claimed to me and on Tom Cannavan’s wine forum on Wine Pages (wine-pages.com) through the thread ‘PMH Wines Ltd - in liquidation En primeur’ that in 2006 he was duped by a bunch of swindlers who bought his business and then doubled crossed him. He claims they took everything: ‘obviously the company name, stock, money in the company accounts, my self esteem, my health just to mention a few’. He explains his signature on the application to strike off PMH Wines Ltd by saying that he didn’t look at what he was signing properly. 'I was approached by a Financial Services company, from what I can remember they sounded viable and it all looked above board. They were acting on my behalf when I signed a contract with them, I can remember having to sign a shed load of forms when they came to the shop'. Amazingly Paul Havers doesn’t know the name of the person who is alleged to have bought his business. He thinks the Financial Services company was called Companies 2 Go Ltd based in Newport (Salop) but this was a dormant company, which was dissolved on 29th August 2006. When he assumed that the sale of PMH Wines Ltd had gone through Havers claims to have destroyed all the company’s records. As he kept the shop and transferred the internet site to a Dutch insurance operation, what was there for a putative purchaser to buy? Goodwill - with a lengthening list of county court judgments? The probability must be that this alleged ‘swindle’ is a figment of Paul Havers’ imagination. When asked why there were only two creditors listed on the statement of affairs, he replied ‘To answer your questions, I did provide the documents to the liquidator, where and how he used them I don't know. He took all the details when we met and I even had to send him some additional details. He is still asking me for information that he took from me at our initial meeting so I am nowhere wiser.’ ‘Wiser’ is an interesting and, possibly, apposite choice of word. Paul Havers appears to have forgotten that he swore and signed the statement of affairs (23rd August 2006) listing only two creditors. investdrinks understands that three further creditors have come forward this week. Nor were the nearly 20 cases of wine in PMH Wines Ltd’s account at London City Bond disclosed. It must be highly likely that Paul Havers knew the statement of affairs was inaccurate because he had failed to make a full and proper disclosure to the liquidator. Presumably he was aware that a full disclosure would have put the spotlight on the phoenix of 113 High Street, Godalming and the unfulfilled en primeur orders. investdrinks has spoken to Robert Thompson. “I’m very concerned, as the former liquidator, by all the information that is now coming to light that was not available and not disclosed to me at the time,” he said. “I’m very concerned on behalf of the creditors that matters should be taken further. I would be totally happy to provide information to any further investigation.” I understand that the liquidator still has his file on the company. When I mentioned the alleged ‘buyout swindle’ he said “this is a new one to me!” Stop press: 28th September 2007 investdrinks now understands from Louis Vialard SAS that, although Paul Havers placed orders for 2004 en primeur payment was never received as Louis Vialard’s representative for the UK explains. ‘I can categorically state that Louis Vialard S.A.S. received no payment from "PMH Wines" or Mr Paul Havers for any primeur requested by him, Mr. Havers was called repeatedly for payments to be made but as no money was paid to us we cancelled his order.’PMH Wines Ltd in liquidation PMH Wine Ltd, which sold 2004 Bordeaux en primeur, went into voluntary liquidation on 10th August 2006. It is likely that none of the company’s clients, who ordered 2004 en primeur from PMH Wines Ltd, have received their wines. They are not listed as creditors on the liquidator’s report - there are only two creditors - Paul Havers, the sole director, and Hallgarten Wines Ltd. If you bought 2004 en primeur from PMH Wines Ltd investdrinks would urge to contact the liquidator, who is Robert Thompson of Rendell Thompson 32 Aldershot Road, Fleet, Hants GU51 3NN. Tel: 01252-816636. The company is due to be dissolved on 13th October 2007, so you will need act quickly. Christopher Keiller contact details Christopher Keiller is in between moving house. His old email address is now working again and he can also be contacted on 01963-220788. The Cellaret - £350,000 not passed on to Bordeaux négociants Some three months after The Cellaret went into voluntary liquidation with debts of £550,000 it has emerged that the £350,000 paid to them by customers for 2005 en primeur was not passed onto the Bordeaux négociants. The company did pass on the approximately £135,000 to cover orders for 2004 en primeur. The Cellaret’s failure to pay the Bordeaux négoce has sunk a possible class action by a number of the Cellaret’s en primeur customers led by a London barrister against the liquidator’s claim that en primeur customers do not have title to the wines they ordered. The liquidators - The MacDonald Partnership - are waiting to have a meeting with Ray Dutton and Anita Doherty, the two directors of The Cellaret. investdrinks imagines that the liquidators will be expecting wanting a full and convincing explanation from Doherty and Dutton. UK liquidators have a duty to report details of any misconduct by the directors to the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). This is part of a disturbing pattern as The Cellaret is the third collapsed company in 13 months not to pass on customers’ money to secure en primeur orders. There appears to be a regrettable tendency for UK companies to treat customers’ en primeur funds as free money to be used to finance their business, in particular buying Christmas stock. The obvious danger being that poor Christmas sales leaves them unable to pay the Bordeaux merchants and that customers’ unsecured interest free loan turns into a donation. investdrinks is pleased to learn that the Wine & Spirit Trades Association is looking at ways of trying to reduce the risk of buying en primeur and providing guidance to consumers when choosing an en primeur merchant. “We are looking at whether there will be benefits in developing a checklist for consumers and if so what would it include. Jeremy Beadles, WSTA’s chief executive said. It will be good if the WSTA do come up with a useful and worthwhile checklist. However it is not enough to encourage customers to do their own due diligence, the fine wine trade through the WSTA needs to look at tightening up en primeur procedures and to set out best practice. The following ‘best practice’ en primeur measures should now be considered:
Christopher Keiller Fine Wines - request for information investdrinks would appreciate any information about the current situation and whereabouts of Christopher Keiller Fine Wines whose business address is 46 Green Lane, Redruth, TR15 1JU Tel: 01209-215706 or 217099. A client of the company has been unable to contact them. investdrinks understands that Christopher Keiller Fine Wines had a ‘large cellar clearance’ in July 2007. The above telephone numbers no longer exist and the web site (gladys.demon.co.uk/finewineservices.html) cannot be found and emails are returned. investdrinks trusts that this is just a question of the business having changed contact numbers etc. Dunbar - wines still outstanding investdrinks has been reporting on the problems at Dunbar Fine Wines and the failure of its owner, Soorat Singh, to pre-paid wines to his clients since lat May 2006. Although the majority of Dunbar’s customers have received their wine there are still 8 or 9 who are still waiting for a total of around 40 cases they are still owed. One unfortunate client is still owed 13 cases of wine. It remains unclear whether Singh passed on money paid to him for en primeur wines to the brokers or to the Bordeaux négociants. Tony Mcauley of the East Lothian Trading Standards Service is still pursuing Singh, although his patience must surely be wearing this that Singh has failed to get this all sorted out long ago. Singh has now departed on holiday until the end of August when he is due to meet Mcauley again. investdrinks would have thought that Singh could properly go on holiday once he had furnished the wines he is contracted and has been paid to supply. I fancy that unless Singh gets this all sorted very quickly the Trading Standards Service will take legal action against him. investdrinks understands that one client has already started a civil action against Singh and expects judgment soon - having had no response from Mr Singh. Languedoc producer scammed Unfortunately a Languedoc producer (Château Marmorières in La Clape close to Narbonne with 110 hectares of vines - chateau-de-marmorieres.com) supplied 18,000 bottles to a Dee James, who claimed to be buying for Maxwells Restaurants Ltd. Although Maxwells Restaurant is in Covent Garden Dee gave 678 High Road, London N17 as the delivery address. 678-682 is a small supermarket called TFC with a car park attached. It does not sell alcoholic drinks. James gave a mobile and a fax number that are now no longer operative. There were three deliveries. The last left Languedoc on 29th June and arrived in London 3rd July. investdrinks understands that when the driver reached 678-682 High Road, London he was met by three people and directed to Markfield Road, which is nearby - a little south and east close to Tottenham Hale station. There is no suggestion that anyone at the supermarket was aware that 678 was being used as the delivery address. Apparently at Markfield Road, the driver was directed to Constable Crescent that runs between Markfield Road and Stamford Street. He waited here for around 90 minutes before being asked to return to Markfield Road where the lorry was unloaded. Markfield Road appears to have mainly light industrial units. The driver was given a NatWest cheque from a company that turned out to be bankrupt. Of the other two transport companies involved one sensibly asked for cash, while the other was given an international bank transfer document that turned out to be a fake. Apparently James has been involved in a similar scheme before when he was called David Clarke. The 678 High Road address is just across the road from 675, which Dave Galan gave as a delivery address for the attempted fraud in Sancerre back in April. 675 is rather grandly called the Criterion Buildings with The Blue Bar on the ground floor. Even more recently there were two attempts to scam Loire producers. On 26th July Dee James (manager) and David Nicholson (finance executive) supposedly with the Carlton Tower Limited, 207 Slane (sic - Sloane) Street, SW1X 9QX London, UK. Nicholson’s direct lines were given as tel:+44 (0) 7932780745 and fax:+44 (0) 7092867900 contacted Maison Audebert in Bourgueil. Then Robert Turpin (customer service) posing as a buyer for D&J Exports Ltd in Westcliff-on-Sea attempted to place an order for 2000 bottles of Cabernet d’Anjou and 2000 of Anjou-Villages from Château la Varière in Brissac-Quincé on 27th July. Fortunately Varière checked with D&J Exports Ltd, who had never heard of Mr Turpin nor placed an order for wine. Not surprising really as D&J Exports Ltd ‘are specialists in the export of materials to the oilfield and petrochemical industry sector’. investdrinks understands that the police are investigating the theft of the Château Marmorières’ wine. It remains to be seen whether they carry out a serious investigation or whether the file is allowed to gather dust. Clearly wine producers, especially those in France, need to be on their guard and to check carefully before agreeing to supply new customers. The Cellar Rack - cold storage! investdrinks was contacted recently by a client of The Cellar Rack, a storage company, who had several cases of 1998 Grange stored with them. They had been unable to contact the company and feared the worst, especially as the Yorkshire address given on invoices turned out to be The Cellar Rack’s web designer. Furthermore inquiries soon revealed that the company was facing an proposal to strike off because the annual return had been overdue since 25th August 2006 - it was finally filed on 18th July 2007. The sole director was Australian winemaker MacGregor Forbes and the company had been without a company secretary since 23rd May 2006 - another breach of UK company law. Doubtless MacGregor Forbes, who has worked in both Austria and Australia and now has his own brand of wines, is a fine winemaker but his running a UK company and complying with UK company laws. Things now appear to be looking up with a Greg Thompson taking over with Forbes resigning as a director. Their new registered office is at 10 Beauchamp Place, Knightsbridge, London SW3 1NQ - email: info@thecellarrack.com. Cellar Rack store their clients’ wine in their company account at London City Bond in Tilbury. I’m increasingly convinced that anyone, who has a significant amount of wine in bond, should have their own account, so that they have total control over their precious wine. This is quite the reverse of the position with an account like The Cellar Rack, where you need the company’s permission to move the wine and, furthermore, there is nothing to stop the company moving or selling your wine without permission. The UK’s two largest bonded warehouses London City Bond and Octavian both have private account facilities and are putting an increasing emphasis on them. uvine: CVA accepted unanimously At a meeting in Peterborough creditors accepted unanimously the Company Voluntary Arrangement proposals (see posting of 29th June). The imponderable remains whether Bob Roche’s plans through Marqem Ltd have real substance. investdrinks has tried to contact Bob Roche, so far without success but hopes in the near future to have an opportunity to learn more about his plans. The Cellaret - en primeur misery People who bought 2005 en primeur Bordeaux from The Cellaret will be treated as unsecured creditors and are unlikely to get any money back. Whatever assets that are recovered are expected to go to the two secured creditors. In July The liquidators (TMP partnership) sent the following letter from their solicitors - Pinsent Masons - to those clients who claimed their en primeur purchases. THE CELLARET LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ("COMPANY") We refer to your letter dated July 2007, the contents of which are noted. We are instructed in this matter by the Company's liquidators, who were appointed on 29 May 2007 ("Liquidators"). As Liquidators of the Company, our clients are under a duty to investigate all claims made against the Company. From our investigations, any wine purportedly sold to you has never been specifically appropriated to the Company's contract with you nor has any wine, whether for you or for customers generally, been segregated from the Company's general trading stock. Even if such wine had been segregated (which does not appear to be the case) it has not been identified to you or the contract itself. Accordingly, title in the wine cannot pass to you and we are unable to accept your claim. For the purposes of the liquidation of the Company, subject to your filing a satisfactory proof of debt, you will be regarded as an unsecured creditor and will be entitled to prove for a dividend, if any. If you are able to produce evidence to the contrary, our clients will of course consider your claim further. In order to prove your claim you are required to provide proof of the following: -
We believe that in certain instances, customers of the Company have been provided with a "certificate of title". Our investigations have not revealed that the reference numbers on such certificates relate to any physically identifiable cases of wine. Unfortunately therefore, a reference by you to such "certificates" will not prove ownership of the subject wine claimed by you. We also understand that Ms Anita Doherty, previously of the Company, wrote to various customers suggesting that such customers had good title in the wine paid for by them. Unfortunately, as set out above, this does not appear to be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, Ms Doherty neither has nor had any authority to accept or agree claims on behalf of the Liquidators. Yours faithfully Citypoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9AH United Kingdom Here is yet more evidence that those who play at the Bordeaux en primeur roulette table may instead of winning lose their money, their wine though possibly not their shirts. Atlantic Wine Agencies Inc - the future looks bleak The company’s accounts to 31st March 2007 filed - around two months late with the US Securities & Exchange Commission on 13th July - do not make encouraging reading. Update has previously reported on Atlantic’s attempt to sell its Mount Rozier vineyard in South Africa and the negative press that it has received from Tony Levene (Guardian) and Tony Hetherington (Mail on Sunday). In November 2004, Hetherington revealed that the websites of Atlantic and boiler room operations in Amsterdam and Zurich selling Atlantic shares were all registered in Australia by the same person. Investors, who were persuaded to buy Atlantic shares, have seen the value fall. Since the second quarter of 2006 Atlantic’s share price has been stuck at $0.02. The latest accounts make any recovery in share price and company fortunes look decidedly unlikely. In October 2006, having concluded that the company needed to get out of South African wine and wine in general, Atlantic employed the Auction Alliance, a South African auction firm, to sell its Myrtle Grove Property and Estates, responsible for the Mount Rozier brand. Update understands that the auction held in December 2006 attracted one bid. Subsequently Auction Alliance was in negotiation, which proved unsuccessful, with two interested parties. Atlantic notes that it was ‘unable to sell its business to any auction bidders because it could not agree on terms. Therefore, the Company continues its business as a world-class wine maker.’ There is evidence that Mount Rozier did make good wine: in happier times Christopher Burr, the former chairman of uvine, was involved. Indeed the Mount Rozier Cabernet Sauvignon Cuvee Burr 2004 Stellenbosch was awarded a Gold medal in the 2006 Decanter World Wine Awards. However, they now have little wine to sell and may well not have made any 2007. Atlantic has just $144,480 worth of bottled wine. This compares to $324,492 for 2006, which included raw material and work in progress, not mentioned in the 2007 accounts. The implication appears to be that Mount Rozier has made no wine this year. The inventory is not low because of booming sales. In 2006 net sales were $1,132,060. In 2007 this dropped to just $196,920 with a net operating loss of $1,565,404 to 31st March 2007. The accumulated deficit has risen from $6,184,014 in 2006 to $7,749,230 and Atlantic now has a bank overdraft of $158,967. The London sales office was closed at the end of March 2006. Small wonder that the question of whether Atlantic remains a 'going concern' is raised in the accounts. 'As indicated in the accompanying financial statements, the Company has incurred cumulative net operating losses of $7,749,230 since inception and has negative working capital of $1,912,728. Management’s plans include the raising of capital through the equity markets to fund future operations and the generating of revenue through its business. Failure to raise adequate capital and generate adequate sales revenues could result in the Company having to curtail or cease operations. Additionally, even if the Company does raise sufficient capital to support its operating expenses and generate adequate revenues, there can be no assurances that the revenues will be sufficient to enable it to develop business to a level where it will generate profits and cash flows from operations. These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. However, the accompanying financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. These financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recovery of the recorded assets or the classification of the liabilities that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.' Unable to sell its only asset - Myrtle Grove - and with little wine to sell Atlantic looks to be effectively bust as the chances of raising the amount of capital they need must be slim. A time to be on your guard From time to time some French producers, probably some from other countries too, get approached by people wanting to order wine from them who on closer examination are not who they claim to be. The danger, of course, is that the producer will supply the wine ordered but never receive payment. With many French producers, especially in Languedoc-Roussillon, finding it difficult to sell their wine, it must be tempting to jump at any offer that comes along. Here are two examples where producers had suspicions and made inquiries. The first comes from Sancerre, where it is rare for producers to have problems selling their wines. Attempted fraud in Sancerre In late April Sancerre producer Hubert Brochard in Chavignol was the target for an attempted fraud. Fortunately Nancy Feron, their sales manager, was suspicious and rumbled the fraud in time. A ‘Dave Galan’ first posed as a buyer for the Ram Brawery (sic) in Wandsworth, London and then as a buyer for Hydes Brewery in Manchester looking to buy 3000 bottles of Sancerre (1500 of Sancerre Blanc 2006 and 1500 Sancerre Rosé 2006) to be delivered to 675 High Road, Tottenham London N17 8AD. The order quoted Hydes Brewery’s address in Manchester along with their vat and excise number. It gave a mobile telephone number, which has no connection with anyone at the brewery. Feron checked with Hydes Brewery. She told harpers that the two addresses made her suspicious. “Also Galan was in a big rush for the wine. Normally importers want us to send samples. He told me that it was needed for a hotel function.” “We didn’t place this order nor do we have any knowledge of it and we have never done business with this address in Tottenham,” Denis Hogan of Hydes Brewery, told investdrinks. “I have passed this onto the Tottenham police. We don’t buy wine direct instead we have a wholesaler who delivers straight to our pubs.” A more recent example from France’s Midi: investdrinks gathers that a Coteaux du Languedoc producer in the Herault has been contacted by a Nathan Green, who says he is the wine buyer for the Thistle Kensington Hotel in London. Here is his email message to the producer: ‘Cher Mr/Mme, N'hesitez pas a me contacter si vous avez besoin d'informations Nathan Green Apparently Mr Green is keen to place an order 'very quickly'. However, the registered company number given is invalid and there is no Thistle Kensington Park UK registered company. Mr Green appears only to have a mobile number. Normally the various companies in the Thistle group are registered at an address on the Bath Road, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 9FH. Apparently the producer contacted Thistle who had not heard of Mr Nathan Green, whose email address is nathanthistlehotel@yahoo.co.uk U.K.: uvine creditors may get 95 Percent? Proposals sent out to uvine creditors last week offer them the chance to get 95 percent of their money back. The London-based wine exchange, uvine, collapsed in September 2006 with debts of around £4 million ($8 million). In all some £10 million ($20 million) was sunk into the project since it was set up in 1999. Following six months of negotiations, Graham Wolloff, the administrator, persuaded Trieste Direct Investments Ltd, which invested nearly £3 million in uvine, the three remaining directors (Frank Hohmann III, Paul Rogers and Jonathan Perratt) and the Amphora Fine Wine Fund Plc to waive their claims against uvine. Uvine's Australian subsidiary company claim for £300,000 ($599,280) is not affected. Perratt and Rogers have an interest in Trieste, which will make a cash contribution of £450,000 ($599,280) within 35 days of the proposals being approved. Trieste will also buy uvine's en primeur contracts and its commercial records for £25,022 ($49,984). Trieste will hope to deliver as much of the Bordeaux en primeur 2003 and 2005 wines ordered as possible. Marqem Ltd, an unrelated U.K. company run by Canadian businessman Bob Roche, will buy uvine's goodwill, intellectual property rights and customer database for £5875 ($11,736). Marqem, a subsidiary of BTP Ltd, will pay creditors 80 percent of what is owed to them in six installments starting on April 30, 2008 and ending on September 30, 2010. BTP Ltd will guarantee the obligations of Marqem to creditors under promissory note arrangements. Roche became a director of Marqem Ltd and BTP Ltd on 14th February 2007, when there was a complete change of directors, company secretaries and the registered office changed from Leeds to C/O Focus Management, Lyndean House, 43-46 Queens Road, Brighton BN1 3XB. Bob Roche is managing director of Roche Investment Holdings AG, an investment holdings and business management company based in Toronto. At the end of 2006 Roche Investment Holdings made an offer to buy uvine and its assets. The administrator rejected this offer because he was unable to find out enough information about Bob Roche and the company. Graham Wolloff told investdrinks that he understands that Bob Roche intends to build a business marketing luxury brands, including wine to high-end customers. Clearly investors will doubtless wish to weigh up whether enough is known about Bob Roche and the two limited companies - Marqem and BTP. They used to be part of the international Clairant chemical group but this is no longer the case, so previous company accounts for BTP Ltd may no longer offer much guidance as to the likely future performance of BTP and its subsidiary company Marqem. investdrinks suspects that some creditors will want to know more about Roche and his intentions. Were the creditors to reject the CVA, uvine would go into liquidation and it is unlikely that the creditors would get any of their money back. This would probably depend upon pursuing a successful action against the three non-executive directors, who all live abroad. The chances of success are not thought to be high. There will be a meeting at the administrator's offices in Peterborough (U.K.) on July 9 to vote on the proposals. The U.K. Department of Trade & Industry investigation into the running of uvine continues. Cellaret collapse - uncertainty over en primeur wines Customers, who bought en primeur 2005s from the collapsed The Cellaret Ltd, face an anxious wait before knowing whether they will get their wine. “We are getting advice from our solicitors over who has title to these wines,” Lisa Jenkins the liquidator at the TMP - The Macdonald Partnership - told investdrinks. However title may well be disputed as The Cellaret Ltd has two secured creditors - Euro Sales Finance Plc in Holborn, London and General Capital Venture Finance Ltd, Ipswich. Cellaret took out a mortgage with General Capital in April 2006 and one with Euro Sales in July 2006. Both have a charge on all of the assets of the company, so they may claim that the en primeur orders are part of The Cellaret’s assets. The amount secured is undefined: ‘all monies due or to become due from the company to the chargee on any account whatsoever ‘. Asked whether all of the money paid by customers to Cellaret had been passed onto the Bordeaux négociants. Jenkins replied “A lot of it was.” Previously Ray Dutton, CEO of The Cellaret twice assured investdrinks that the wines bought en primeur were safe. As of Tuesday 12th the Liquidator did not know how much en primeur had been sold. The company went into liquidation on 29th May with a deficiency of £550,000 owed to some 60 creditors. This, however, does not include en primeur sales, so that if not all the money was passed onto the Bordeaux merchants or the en primeur customers lose their wines to the secured creditors, the deficiency is likely to rise. If the en primeur sales are treated as company assets that are due to the secured creditors, then this will be a very nasty shock for anyone contemplating an en primeur purchase. Another en primeur merchant goes bust On Tuesday (29th May) fine wine merchant The Cellaret Ltd will be put into liquidation and a liquidator appointed at a creditors’ meeting in London called by TMP - The MacDonald Partnership - ‘specialists in solving financial distress’. The Cellaret Ltd, which was set up in May 2004, bought the Wine Portfolio Ltd and online merchant Wine Direct Ltd at the beginning of 2006. 58-year old Ray Dutton and 39-year old Anita Doherty are the two directors and the company operated from extensive premises, with a vaulted tasting room, in Roseberry Avenue in London. Selling en primeur to private clients was an important part of The Cellaret’s business and investdrinks understands that the company sold a significant amount of Bordeaux 2005. It is not known at present whether all of the money paid by private clients for en primeur Bordeaux was passed onto the négociants in Bordeaux. Generally the deadline for the final payment on the 2005s was 31st December 2006, although terms and conditions vary from one négociant to another. It is too early to know either the total loss or how many trade and private creditors there are. However, Ray Dutton has assured investdrinks that ‘anyone who has bought en primeurs have had their wines safeguarded and will be able to take delivery as normal next year. We have written to our en primeur customers to reassure them that there wines are safe.’ Dutton also told investdrinks that ‘I have called a creditors meeting for both The Cellaret and Wine Portfolio on Tuesday. The reason for this is that as we are loss making we run the risk of being seen to be trading whilst insolvent so we had to take preventative action. The creditors meeting will vote on the disposal of stocks and I have agreed to assist with this over the next two months.’ In October 2006 The Cellaret announced a ‘landmark agreement with London-based EIS investment specialists Enterprise Corporate Finance Limited. The initiative provides for the raising of £650,000 of additional equity capital by March 2007, with a further £4 million over the following two years.’ Dutton said that “the additional funding will enable the company to capitalise on key opportunities to negotiate new relationships with suppliers, significantly increase our stocks of fine wine for trading and expand our current sales force and customer service offering.” Susan Phillips (CEO of Enterprise Corporate Finance Limited) commented then that: ‘The Cellaret has particular appeal in terms of Return On Investment with initial tax discounts under the EIS, exemption from inheritance tax, capital gains tax freedom and, of course, the ability to distribute to shareholders in specie. Over the longer term, the maturing wine portfolio and capital value of the business has great potential for the private investor or, should I say, imbiber!’ However, the private placement was a flop. “It didn’t raise sufficient funds to provide working capital,” Phillips told investdrinks. ‘The directors of The Cellaret Ltd have decided that it was not viable to continue and to place the company in liquidation.” Dutton told investdrinks that ‘The EIS fund raising was rather less than we were anticipating. It also took much longer than we were led to believe so in the end we decided not to go ahead with it.’ The accounts to 31st March 2006 show that stocks grew rapidly from March 2005 to March 2006 - to £285,465 up from £3,500. The company had total assets of £95,202 after meeting £351,339 due to creditors within a year, while the profit and loss account made a loss of £143.354. The Cellaret is the third fine wine company offering en primeur to collapse in the past 13 months. It follows Mayfair Cellars (April 2006) and uvine (September 2006). Bacchus Vintners Towards the end of AprilI received the following message from a Mr B: ‘I am new to wine world and am looking at it from an investment point of view and have recently been contacted by a company that appears on the surface to be legitimate and I am very interested in investing in their offering. However, with all the focus on wine scams and fraud recently I am reluctant to part with cash until I have done due diligence on the offering company. And there's the rub - how do I check them out, are you aware of them etc.... The company in question is Bacchus Vintners, details below: Bacchus Vintners As they are Spain based I am finding it difficult to check them out. Also, my nervousness stems mainly from the fact that the initial call was unsolicited by me.’ Bacchus Vintners’ website shows that they have two activities: selling Spanish wine for delivery with Spain and elsewhere in the European Union and wines for investment. Their Spanish list includes Pingus, Alion and Roda, although no prices are given as ‘all prices are available upon request as vintages, availability and prices change during the year’. The site is quite informative about wine in general - it has the usual sections about Robert Parker, the 1855 classification and appellation contrôlée, although I was surprised to learn that the appellation system was ‘drawn up in 1855’. Bacchus Vintners is the trading name of Parkwood Ventures SL and Gregory Pearson is the sole director. Mr B was offered a case of Mouton-Rothschild 2003 for £2365. It was suggested that he holds it for three to five years and that he can expected it to increase in value by 20% a year. Wine-searcher shows that Bordeaux Index are currently offering this for £1950. Last June they had it for £1600, so it has jumped by 20% in just less than a year, although the year before that (June 2005) they were charging £1675. In April 2007 Bacchus was advertising for wine brokers on friday-ad.es
Clearly the training must be good as costapages.com carries two testimonials: 1) Review added by Alex Cook / 04-19-2007 (id 46) 2) Review added by Bilal Ibrahim / 04-18-2007 (id 45) Bacchus’s second newsletter (April 2007) consists of mainly unacknowledged borrowing from various sources including decanter.com (William Lyons’s story on a wine festival in Edinburgh) and the Wine Enthusiast (Roger Voss’s account of the 2006 en primeur tastings). I have had some email correspondence with Gregory Pearson. I asked him for a list of wines they are offering for investment. He replied that: ‘At the moment investment wines are supplied on an ad-hoc basis. However this is an area of our business we are looking to expand in the coming months.’ I pushed him to supply examples of wines offered with their prices and received a detailed reply: ‘I have spent a fair amount of time viewing investdrinks.org and I must offer you my sincere congratulations on your succinct and informative website. I was under the impression that the fraudulent companies in the wine industry had been closed down some years ago. However, from your recent submission, "Bordeaux Advisory's staggering prices (Posted 14th May 2007)" it seems that this is not the case. As we are currently expanding our business to incorporate an investment arm, your presence and your website is obviously beneficial to us here at Bacchus Vintners and we look forward to working hand-in-hand with you in the future. We have been trading here in Spain for the last few years supplying Spanish drinking wines to clients both here in Spain and in the U.K. A number of our clients already owned investment portfolios and having discussed their portfolios with these clients we were, quite frankly, amazed at some of the financial returns. As a result we have decided, as a company, to expand our business in this vein. At the moment we are a small organization with a staff of five. We put all our staff through the Original Wine Tour at Vinopilis in London as a basic requirement and are currently in discussions with the Wine Academy of Spain in Marbella with a view to sitting the various Wine & Spirit Education Trust (WSET) qualifications. Should our staff wish to take this further they will, of course, have our full support. In addition, we require all staff to pass an informal in-house test every Friday afternoon on the fundamentals of wine to advance their knowledge. We currently take advice from various suppliers in the U.K as to which wines to offer as an investment as well as doing our own in-house research. To date we have only focused on one wine, the Chateau Pavie 2003 which we offer at £1410 per case (12 bottles). I am sure you are aware that this wine can currently be purchased for £1200 from Farr Vintners but please bear in mind that at the end of the day we are a commercial business, and we do not charge a 25% commission upfront on the purchase price, unlike some companies I have read about on your website, nor do we charge a commission on the sale.’ My response: You are right to say that there have been big increases in price in the fine wine market but these need to be put into context. The wine market tends to move in sharp jumps and then plateau out. Take the Decanter Bordeaux Index now at 143.11 (June 2007 issue) this was reset at 100 in December 1996. Thus despite the sharp rises of the last couple of years the average annual price rise over nearly 11 years is only just over 4%. According to wine-searcher a case of Pavie 2003 can currently bought for £1050 from Bordeaux Wine Investments and JEB Wine Trading. As you say Farr Vintners has it for £1200, so Farr is 17.5% cheaper than Bacchus and BWI and JEB are 34%. I quite understand that you are a commercial business and have to make a profit and if you are buying from UK merchants you have to add a margin or you haven’t got a business or won’t do for long. But this is the crux of offering wine for investment and attempting to persuade people that they are buying wine that is likely to show a profit when you know that the same wine can be bought cheaper elsewhere. Why should an investor buy the Pavie from Bacchus rather than from MWI or JEB? With retail this is not a problem you are perfectly entitled to sell it at whatever price you wish. Not so an investment unless perhaps you plainly warn potential investors that they can buy their investment wines substantially cheaper elsewhere and that they have a much better chance of making a profit if they do so. I have yet to receive a response to this message. Mr B had really answered his question with his last sentence - if you can’t check a company out then don’t do business with them. Also rightly or wrongly you might think twice about being cold called by a company based in Marbella. Bordeaux Advisory’s staggering prices This wine investment company is based in Luxembourg and sells its portfolio wines for remarkably high prices and offers wines that appear to have little investment potential. An investor (Mr A) with Bordeaux Advisory recently sent details to me of their portfolio that cost 89,500 euros (£60,966) when it was purchased in February 2006. According to wine-searcher.com these wines can be bought for €8944.29 (£6388.78). Of course were this portfolio to be sold on the open market it would realise considerably less after commission charges are deducted. Mr A’s portfolio of 18 different Bordeaux includes a case of Château Leoville Las Cases 1992 charged at €6250. In June 2006 this was available through Wilkinson Vintners for £536.50 - a difference in price of £5713.50. Furthermore 1992 was probably the worst Bordeaux vintage of the decade and its investment potential is very far from obvious. Most of the portfolio consists of minor AC Bordeaux properties, some Montagne St Emilion and several second wines of classed growths - Sarget de Gruaud-Larose 1997 for instance. A case of Château Canon 1996, the one wine that might accrue in value, cost €3590 (£2564) when it could be bought for €558.98 (£339.27) from Corney & Barrow in mid-June 2006 - a difference of €3031.02. Bordeaux Advisory International SA, founded and apparently run by John Taylor, is based in Luxembourg and is part of the Graniton SARL group. Bordeaux Advisory was registered here on 4th July 1995 and its address is 60 Grand Rue/Niveau 5 Lu1660, Luxembourg. Tel 00 352 2633 1930 and email: info@bordeauxadvisory.com. Making up its board of directors are Seline Finance Ltd, a dormant UK company founded on 19th July 1996 with a registered office at 88A Tooley Street, London Bridge, London SE1 2TF and Judith Dekker of 60 Boulevard Napoléon 1, L-2210 Luxembourg. Dekker was appointed on 20th October 2006 and is mandated to continue until 2012. The sole director of Seline Finance Ltd is South African Richard Glen Frank Turner (DOB: 10.12.1939) of 28 Rue du Couvent, Howald, 1363 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg who was appointed on 15.8.2004. He is also a director of Seline Management Ltd, also of 88A Tooley Street, which is Seline Finance’s company secretary. Turner is also managing director of Falcon Participations Holding sarl, which is also based at 60 Grand Rue, Luxembourg. A previous director of Seline Finance Ltd, Jan H. van Leuvenheim (DOB: 15.3.1937) who resigned from Seline Finance on 15th August 2004 is managing director of the following companies that are also based at 60 Grand Rue and have Seline Finance Ltd as their director: Sandhurst Financial Trust S.A, Ivory Invest S.A., Fire And Ice Investments Group S.A., Fiscopar S.A, Mortirolo Participations S.A., Société Anonyme, Models Unlimited S.A., Euro Flor Invest S.A., M Trust S.A., Interfinance For Development S.A., Felijo Holding S.A. and Falcon Participations Holding. It is not known if any of these companies have any connection or involvement in InvestNow2 (www.investnow2.com), also part of the Graniton SARL Group, whose registered office is 60 Grand Rue, Luxembourg. ’ Graniton was registered on 16th May 2001. Its two accociés (partners) are Seline Finance Ltd and Seline Management Ltd. The InvestNow2 claims a way of investing that brings ‘unprecedented high return of 29,64% on average per year or more! Bordeaux Advisory’s website (bordeauxadvisory.com) acknowledges in the FAQ section that the wines they sell can be bought more cheaply elsewhere. However, they explain that: ‘Is it possible to come across the same wine I bought through Bordeaux Advisory sold at a lower retail price? Yes. However, this is the old comparison of apples and pears. These cases have travelled a very different route from the château. The wine from the château intended for the shops does not have a specified history. In other words, you can never be quite sure how this wine has been handled as far as transportation (lorries, delivery vans, trolleys) and storage (at the wholesaler's, in shops, whether or not it was removed from the case) are concerned. Wine that has been transferred directly from the château to a Humidity-Controlled storage in order to remain there, will undoubtedly have been treated appropriately. This wine is particularly suited to be left stored for years for future enjoyment. ‘The same wine, but with a completely different history.’ Provenance is an important consideration. For instance at the auction a few years ago of old vintages of Latour, including 1961, that came direct from the property sold for a significant premium. However, this does not explain the price difference between wines sold by Bordeaux Advisory and those listed on wine-searcher. The Bordeaux Advisory site carries a number of testimonials from ‘satisfied investors’. Before purchasing his portfolio Mr A was encouraged to contact one of these investors - a Mr. B. van Dam. On the site van Dam says: ‘Experience tells us which investments give the best return. I have invested in wine via Bordeaux Advisory. And the result? An average return of 30.46% per annum. You see, experience is not the only thing I gained!’ Mr A telephoned van Dam. A told me that van Dam ‘claimed to have invested 500,000 euro with BA and has had a yearly return of about 17% minimum. He was so enthusiastic that he claims to have converted all his capital to investments with BA. He said he was in his mid-forties and had retired from all other work as the investment was paying off so handsomely.’ Assuming that van Dam has bought similar wines at similar prices to Mr A it would indeed be a remarkable achievement to make 17% a year. It would, of course, be possible if Bordeaux Advisory were able to find someone prepared to purchase wines at an amazingly inflated price. Bordeaux Advisory’s contact in the UK is JWM Vintners Ltd, which is based at Hadstock in Cambridgeshire and is run by 37-year old Jonnie May. ‘Having spent most of my professional life in and around wine, with the exception of a stint at a soft drinks manufacturer, I have had the opportunity to experience all aspects of the trade: harvesting, winemaking, and of course advising and selling to a broad range of customers.‘ (jwmvintners.com). May founded JWM Vintners in 29th October 2001. May told investdrinks that he sells some wine to Bordeaux Advisory and arranges storage for Bordeaux Advisory at London City Bond. Update understands that BA clients’ stock is stored in the JWM Vintners account. Interestingly JWM has sold Château Crabitey 2001 Graves, another wine in the Bordeaux Advisory portfolio. Wine-searcher.com shows that JWM was selling Château Crabitey 2001 for €177.60 (£126.86) in June 2006. Bordeaux Advisory charged €1745 a case - €1543.40. Update is puzzled how John Taylor and Bordeaux Advisory can believe that Crabitey, a minor Graves, is a suitable investment. Update understands that JWM did not supply Bordeaux Advisory with this wine. Dunbar Fine Wines: disappointing lack of progress Unfortunately the optimism expressed in my posting of 10th November 2006 was misplaced. A number of Dunbar’s customers still haven’t received all of their wine and some have not received any at all. I spoke yesterday to Tony Mcauley, the trading standards manager for East Lothian who has been pursuing this case with vigour, about what progress has been made. Mcauley is decidedly disappointed that Soorat Singh has not got all this sorted out by now. Last November Mcauley was optimistic that progress was being made. However, this year Singh’s efforts to sort out the situation ‘have dried up’ Mcauley told investdrinks. “It is completely unacceptable that clients have been waiting for their wine for well over a year,” said Mcauley. Clients continue to have problems contacting Singh. Following formal meetings with Singh the trading standards officers have now established a timetable for clients to receive the rest of their wine. This process is due to be completed by the end of June. Singh will be writing to his clients who are owed wine to tell them when their wines will be delivered. I understand that around 15-20% of the original amount of wine outstanding (as notified to Mcauley) remains to be delivered to clients. There may, of course, be other wines not delivered but these people have not contacted Mcauley. It would be wise for them to contact him as he has been impressively thorough in pursuing this case. I sense that Mr Mcauley's patience is wearing decidedly thin and that unless he gets his act together fast Singh will be facing the Fraud Squad. Should this occur I trust that the Scottish police are way more impressive than Hammersmith and Fulham, whose investigation into the looting of Mayfair Cellars moves at the pace of a geriatric snail. Evans & Tate reject Yarraman bid The board of Australian winery Evans & Tate rejected the Yarraman Winery merger bid on 15th March. The figures did not stack up, Evans & Tate said in an announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange. 'The Board did not consider that satisfactory evidence of Yarraman having secured debt and equity sufficient to complete their proposed transaction had been provided. In these circumstances, the Board of Evans & Tate has resolved today to terminate the agreement with Yarraman.' On 20th February Evans & Tate - which is heavily indebted - had provisionally agreed to merge with Yarraman subject to an audit of Yarraman's finances. Yarraman is based in the Hunter Valley but is a subsidiary of Yarraman Winery Inc, an American company based in Nevada. In particular the Margaret River-based Evans & Tate wanted to know how Yarraman - which is also indebted - could obtain the necessary capital to finance the merger. Evans & Tate's latest results for the half-year to 31 December 2006 underline how financially fragile the company remains. Although the trading loss has been slashed to AU$6.74m (£2.74m) from AU$44.4 (£18.1m) over the same period in 2005, its debts exceed its assets by AU$74.4m (£30.3m). Evans & Tate owes its bankers, ANZ, AU$97m (£39.5m). In this latest report Evans & Tate's accountants warn of 'material uncertainty regarding continuation as a going concern'. Yarraman was looking to the merger with Evans & Tate to ease its own financial troubles. Its latest trading report announced 'we are currently in discussions with potential acquisition candidates that will significantly improve our operating results and working capital.' Evans & Tate said it would immediately resume work on any other proposals - but Yarraman maintains its proposed merger is best for all parties. 'Yarraman remains committed to the merger proposal made to Evans & Tate and continues to maintain a positive level of communication with the board and management of Evans & Tate,' it said on 15th March. It added that it would report to its debt and equity financiers and 'submit its complete and final offer' to Evans & Tate in due course. Since Evans & Tate’s termination announcement everything appears to have gone quiet, although John J. Moroney one of Yarraman Winery Inc’s directors has resigned. The announcement filed with the SEC states that ‘ there were no disagreements between Mr. Moroney and the Company on any matter relating to the Company’s operations, policies or practices, which resulted in his resignation. Mr. Moroney was a member of the Company’s Audit Committee and Nominating Committee at the time of his resignation.’ Moroney is the President, chief executive officer and a director of Juvent, Inc., a company specializing in drug-free therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Yarraman Bid: The Saga Continues But is Yarraman a going concern? Nearly two months after Yarraman Winery Inc made its surprise bid for indebted Western Australian wine company Evans & Tate on December 21 2006 the outcome remains in doubt, although both companies have now agreed a due diligence procedure. It will be interesting to see whether E&T’s due diligence investigation will solve the mystery of how loss-making Yarraman can finance its proposed deal. Yarraman improved its offer on 4th February and the time limit for acceptance of this offer was extended to 16th February when Evans & Tate made a counter offer timed to lapse at 12.00 noon West Australian time the same day. It is understood that this included raising the bid to $AU148.3 million ($116.599 million) the demand that Yarraman open their books to enable the Evans & Tate board to establish if Yarraman Winery Inc is able to finance the merger. Just before this deadline Yarraman made a further offer and on 20th February Evans & Tate announced that they had agreed a due diligence procedure. 21-day due diligence investigations will be carried out by both companies and is to be completed by 14th March. Evans & Tate will look to ‘verify the debt and equity commitments for Yarraman’s proposal as well as Yarraman’s forecasts.’ If a merger is to take place there must be a merger implementation agreement by 20th March. ETW has granted Yarraman a ‘no-shop’ exclusivity, ‘subject to Yarraman meeting specific milestones concerning the provision of due diligence information’. ETW retains to right to consider and accept an unsolicited and better offer. There remains a large question mark over how Yarraman Winery Inc can finance this merger and Yarraman’s delayed results for the quarter to 31st December 2006 appear to only to add to the uncertainty. Over this period Yarraman made a comprehensive loss of $1,239,496. This compares to a loss of $150,145 for the same period in 2005. Over the six months to December 31 the net loss is $1,881,237 compared to a loss of $367,635 for the same six months in 2005. In its latest report the company also raised ‘substantial concern about its ability to continue as a going concern’. GOING CONCERN The accompanying financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. As shown in the financial statements, during the six months ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, the Company incurred losses of $1,881,237 and $367,635, respectively. In addition, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, cash deficiencies and the inability to meets it’s maturing obligations without borrowing from related parties and sale of its stock. These issues may raise substantial concern about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern. The Company's continuation as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to generate sufficient cash flow to meet its obligations on a timely basis, to retain its current financing, to obtain additional financing, and ultimately to attain profitability. Management has prepared the following statement in order to address these and other concerns: Yarraman Australia has completed its merger with Yarraman Winery, Inc. as stated in Note 9. Related to this merger we were able to sell 5,253,500 shares of stock for $2,000,000. We also borrowed $675,950 from Delta Dawn. We are currently in discussions with potential acquisition candidates that will significantly improve our operating results and working capital.’ On 14th February Yarraman filed a late notice report to the SEC for their inability to file their latest quarterly results (the three months to December 31 2006) on time. The filing stated that they could not file ‘within the prescribed time period as a result of an ongoing discussion between the Company’s management and its independent auditors regarding the appropriate treatment of certain presentation issues with respect to the Company's financial statements for the six months ended December 31, 2006 under US GAAP. Consequently, the financial statements were not completed by its accountants and could not be completed within the prescribed time period.’ Yarraman’s previous quarterly report filed with the SEC on showed that their comprehensive loss for the three months to September 30 2006 was $558,097. Atlantic Wine Agencies - virtually dormant. Is there life after wine? Six days after Atlantic gave notice that their accounts would not be filed on time, their latest accounts for the three months to 31st December 2006 have now been filed with the SEC. The results show that sales have fallen dramatically - $20,577 compared to $468,723 for the same period last year and that the Myrtle Grove wine estate in South Africa remains unsold, although it is hoped that a sale will be concluded within the next 30 days. There follows gloomy news for anyone holding shares in Atlantic Wine Agencies. NOTE B - GOING CONCERN As indicated in the accompanying financial statements, the Company has an accumulated deficit of $6,533,246. Management’s plans include the raising of capital through the equity markets to fund future operations and the generating of revenue through its business. Failure to raise adequate capital and generate adequate sales revenues could result in the Company having to curtail or cease operations. Additionally, even if the Company does raise sufficient capital to support its operating expenses and generate adequate revenues, there can be no assurances that the revenue will be sufficient to enable it to develop business to a level where it will generate profits and cash flows from operations. These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. However, the accompanying financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. These financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recovery of the recorded assets or the classification of the liabilities that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern. NOTE C - DUE PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS At December 31, 2006, the principal stockholders are owed $1,257,663 for working capital advances. The amounts are unsecured and non-interest bearing. NOTE D - POTENTIAL SALE OF PROPERTY Pursuant to the agreement entered into with Auction Alliance, a South African auction firm, the Company’s Myrtle Grove Property and Estates was auctioned subject to the minimum reserve being met. However, the reserve was not met. Therefore, the Company continues to negotiate with a number of potential purchasers and intends to close within the next 30 days. Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation On October 13, 2006, we entered into an agreement with Auction Alliance, a South African auction firm, to sell our Myrtle Grove Property and Estates, subject to the minimum reserve being met. Assets including land, vineyards, winery equipment and stock will be included in the auction sale. Our management has concluded that (i) after expending considerable resources and efforts in developing our business and building world class wine brands from South Africa, significantly more capital is necessary to further grow the business which are unable to procure on commercially acceptable terms, (ii) The ZAR (South African Rand) has shown considerable volatility related to uncertainty regarding future political situation and (iii) the best time to maximize our South African property and operations is by selling through the public auction process locally in South Africa prior to the growing season in the southern hemisphere. While the auction was held, the reserve was not met. We therefore continue to negotiate with a number of potential purchasers and intend to close within the next 30 days. When the sale has been completed, we will seek to use the proceeds from such sale, after satisfying our current liabilities, to develop or acquire a business or businesses which we believe will best serve the long term interests of our shareholders. Such businesses may or may not be related to the wine industry. As the sole bid for Myrtle Grove was it must be highly unlikely that Atlantic will raise anything like enough money to cover their $6.5 million deficit. Nor is it clear how Atlantic will be able to raise capital through the equity markets for businesses ‘that may or may not be related to the wine industry.’ |
||
Is Yarraman serious in its bid for Evans & Tate? What investdrinks wonders did the board of Evans & Tate, Australia’s 6th largest wine producer, make of the takeover bid they received from Yarraman Winery Inc on 21st December 2006. Did they think that the whole thing was a seasonal joke? Did they check the calendar to see if time hadn’t fast-forwarded to April Fools’ Day? Did they wonder how on earth a financially sickly tin-pot winery in the Hunter Valley was going to take on their own financial problems and solve them? With the cricketing Ashes out of the way, the Australian wine industry is now waiting to see if the founder of the collapsed Barrington Estates is about to rise phoenix-like from the ashes. If Yarraman’s audacious and intriguing $AU131 million (£52.9 million) take-over bid made for struggling Western Australian producer Evans & Tate succeeds, Gary Blom could be back as a major player just four years after his Barrington Estates company collapsed. Australian entrepreneur Blom’s, whose Cinema Plus company that operated a chain of Imax cinemas in Australia collapsed in 2000 owing $AU140 million (£56.58), then attempted to build a wine empire called Barrington Estates. Blom acquired Yarraman Road (Hunter Valley), Mount Avoca (Victoria), Hay Shed Hill (Margaret River, Western Australia) and Haselgrove Wines (South Australia). Barrington collapsed in October 2002 with debts of at least $AU25 million (£10 million) with some estimates as high as $AU40 million (£16.14 million). In September 2004 the ASIC (Australian Securities and Investment Commission) banned Blom from running any Australian company for three years. Blom bought back the Yarraman Estate in the Hunter Valley from the liquidator in 2004 and at the end of 2005 Yarraman Australia become the subsidiary of Yarraman Winery Inc an American company based in Reno, Nevada. Yarraman Winery Inc was originally called January 1, 1997 under the name Dazzling Investments, Inc. and was incorporated on 1st January 1997 with the intent to sell jewellery on the Internet. The name was changed on 6th December 2005. Blom bought back the Yarraman Estate in the Hunter Valley from the liquidator in 2004 and at the end of 2005 Yarraman Australia become the subsidiary of Yarraman Winery Inc an American company based in Reno, Nevada. Yarraman Winery Inc was originally called January 1, 1997 under the name Dazzling Investments, Inc. and was incorporated on 1st January 1997 with the intent to sell jewellery on the Internet. The name was changed on 6th December 2005. 60% of Yarraman Winery Inc belongs to Delta Dawn Pty Ltd, whose American address is 6767 W. Tropicana Avenue, Suite 207, Las Vegas. Through The Lingerie Trust, Blom and his family own 26.52% of Delta Dawn. Evans & Tate is Australia’s 6th largest producer but has lately hit the financial rocks posting a loss of $AU64 million (£16.14 million) in June 2006. Its chairman and largest shareholder Franklin Tate resigned in 2005 and new management hired. In September 2006 Evans & Tate agreed a financial restructuring deal with its bank. Yarraman, which is a much smaller concern, has offered Evans & Tate shareholders one of its shares for nine in Evans & Tate and proposed a restructuring of the company’s $AU90 million debt (£36.38 million) through ‘a major New York investment bank’, whose identity Yarraman will disclose once Evans & Tate agrees to the merger. It is now rumoured that this is the American financial conglomerate GE, which has had a presence in Australia since 1902 and has been increasingly active since buying the Coles Myer’s credit card business in 1995. Evans & Tate’s largest shareholder is Grape Expectations Enterprises Pty Ltd (a company owned and controlled by Franklin with 31.6%. It appears that Franklin Tate has recently sold 19.9% of his stake to Yarraman. It is clear that Yarraman Winery Inc has its own financial problems. Its last quarterly report filed with the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) in November shows a net loss of $581,883 (£300,000) for the three months to 30th September 2006. It has a $1,844,944 (£951,395) long-term loan to Delta Dawn and another with the Provident Bank for $4,207,230 (£2,169,430), which it is seeking to refinance. Yarraman has a tow consultancy arrangement that started in January 2006 with Delta Dawn costing $78,000 (£40,481) a year. This is believed to be for the services of Gary Blom. Furthermore the quarterly report indicates that Yarraman’s survival is in doubt - ‘the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, cash deficiencies and the inability to meets its maturing obligations without borrowing from related parties and sale of its stock. These issues may raise substantial concern about its ability to continue as a going concern.’ On 26th December the board of Evans & Tate announced that it ‘notes that it is not bound by the Yarraman offer, and intends to fully consider and evaluate the offer and provide its view of the offer in due course. The Board has neither approved or dismissed the offer.’ Yarraman asked for a response to their bid by 16th January 2007 and hopes to complete the merger by April 2007. If successful Yarraman wants to expand the merged business, to be named New World Wine Estates making it ‘a leader in the global wine market’. If the rumour that the American financial giant GE is behind the bid is correct then the Yarraman bid looks far more financially secure, whether hitching a small producer in the Hunter Valley with Evans & Tate will make business sense remains to be seen. Vintage Hallmark plc: How US doctors were scammed Two former UK company directors have been disqualified as directors for the maximum period of 15 years for their part in an ingenious wine and spirit investment scam that targeted American doctors and relieved them of nearly £80 million. Following a trial in the High Court Robin Grove of Holme, Cambridgeshire and Richard Gunter of Welwyn, directors of Vintage Hallmark plc were found by His Honour Judge Richard Havery to be ‘utterly unfit to be concerned in the management of a company’. Grove and Gunter have been banned from 6th December 2006 to 5th December 2021. Court papers recently released show how American doctors and others in the US medical community were duped into investing in overpriced wines and spirits by the Hallmark Partnership and then Vintage Hallmark plc using a slick sales team based in Luton, UK. Their imposing shop at 36 St James’s Street, in central London and one of the capital’s most exclusive streets, usefully bolstered the company’s image. "They were later persuaded to exchange their investments for equity. Havery’s judgment describes how Vintage Hallmark Ltd bought the Hallmark Partnership for £59 million ($115.74 million) - described by Havery as a ‘worthless partnership’ that was ‘raising money by offering impossible returns to credulous clients’. Vintage Hallmark Ltd bought the assets and liabilities of the Hallmark Partnership on 19th November 2000. It was re-registered as Vintage Hallmark plc on 27th November 2000. Hallmark Partnership, which had been set up around 1984, entered the drinks sector in 1995. Grove, Gunter and David Lamb were the principal partners and were also the principal directors of Vintage Hallmark plc. Lamb was a chartered accountant. Following the company’s bankruptcy on 22nd January 2003 Lamb committed suicide on November 1 2005. In a letter (16th November 2000) to the company’s American attorney, who was based in Tulsa Oklahoma, Lamb assessed the assets of the Hallmark Partnership at $37.3 million plus $52.3 million as ‘goodwill’ set against liabilities of $77.7 million, mainly owed to American investors who had bought investments in wines and spirits. Shortly afterwards Vintage Hallmark acquired Harbour Industries (US) Ltd based in New York State. Harbour had been providing Hallmark Partnership with warehousing facilities and was their US distributor. Richard DeCicco, Harbour’s CEO, became a director of Vintage Hallmark plc and continued to run Harbour. A private memorandum offering shares to the value £70 million (then worth $105 million) in Vintage Hallmark plc was sent out on December 6 2000. In reality, according to estimates by the UK DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) the company was worth no more than £5 million (then $7.5 million). The Hallmark Partnership sold overpriced wines and spirits as an investment promising remarkable and guaranteed returns. Havery’s judgment describes how in June 2000 a Mr Gordon was persuaded to buy $50,000 worth of vodka that would be resold for $90,000 in three months’ time. Although he was told that his vodka, which turned out to be Cutty Sark whisky, had been sold in less than three months for the promised $90,000, Gordon never saw his money. He was eventually persuaded to swop his ‘investment’ for equity in Vintage Hallmark plc. Most of the investors were persuaded to do the same. Grove and Gunter were more fortunate: in the year 1999/2000 their directors’ salaries were around £900,000 ($1.77 million). Both the Hallmark Partnership and Vintage Hallmark plc offered investments in fine wines and spirits. David Ellsworth, head of international wine sales for Christie’s auction house, and whisky broker Margaret Lombard-Chibnall of Lombard Brands Ltd gave expert evidence. Ellsworth said that ‘the vast majority of the products offered no interest for potential buyers as they are not those products that form the body of wines/spirits with investment potential.’ In the very few instances where they might have made a profit Ellsworth described the price paid by the investors as ‘so ridiculously high that they stood no chance of reselling at a profit’. For example Château Latour 1996 was priced between $5184-5760 for a dozen bottles, when its market price was between $1200-1400. Similarly Lombard-Chibnall testified that ‘the rates of return offered by Vintage to investors were unobtainable and completely unrealistic’. Neither Grove nor Gunter challenged Ellsworth’s or Lombard-Chibnall’s evidence. However both Grove and Gunter vehemently proclaimed their innocence and sought to put the blame on David Lamb, their late partner. Judge Havery refused to entertain their weasel pleas. He pointed out that they drew equal salaries with Lamb and had been present at a meeting in August 2000 when it was recognised by the Partnership ‘that it might be necessary to sell some of the inventory at lower prices to get the inventory moving’. This contrasted with Gunter’s evidence at the High Court that “When I see a wholesale price of $11. I know that I can achieve $30. I can sell it for 37½ times the acquisition cost: three times the wholesale price. I have no idea how the inventory figure of $33.7 million was arrived at. I knew we could beat the figures.” On 15th February 2002 the American shareholders removed Gunter and Lamb from their directorships - Grove had resigned on 12th February 2002 - and attempted to rescue the company. Since it was built on thin air, smoke and mirrors this proved impossible and Vintage Hallmark went bust in January 2003. Howes Percival, a firm of solicitors in Norwich, carried out the investigation into the collapsed company for the DTI. Howes Percival have recently been hired by the DTI to look into alleged misconduct at uvine. investdrinks has been told by a spokesman at the SFO (UK Serious Fraud Office) that “we are conducting an investigation into suspected fraud at Vintage Hallmark plc, although as yet no charges have been laid”. Following the disgraceful decision of Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, to force the SFO to drop the BAA fraud investigation, it seems likely that they will pursue other cases with renewed vigour. There must be a high probability that there will prosecutions in the Vintage Hallmark scam. Two bidders for uvine There are two bidders for collapsed company uvine - the directors and an unnamed company based abroad with apparently no previous experience in the wine trade. Some details were revealed at the meeting in Peterborough on 4th December called the administrators to approve their proposals. Graham Wolloff, one of the administrators, said that following placing an advert offering uvine for sale in the Financial Times on 29th September the overseas bid emerged as the only serious bid. However, the three remaining directors of uvine (Frank Hohmann III, Paul Rogers and Jonathan Perratt) later submitted their own proposals through Trieste Direct Investments Ltd, a company registered in the British Virgin Isles and a major shareholder in uvine. Graham Wolloff said that the three remaining directors (Christopher Burr MW resigned 18th September) were very angry over what had happened and intimated that they had only recently been fully aware that as directors that they had full legal responsibility even though they had acted as non-executive directors leaving Burr to run the company. They were not informed of Burr’s bankruptcy until at least 8th September when Wolloff was called in to advise on the financial situation of uvine. He told Burr that the company was insolvent and that as a bankrupt he could not continue as a director and that the other directors had to be informed. Wolloff revealed that he had received an improved bid from the overseas company on the morning of December 4th. Their intention is to continue to run uvine and that some monies would be repaid to creditors over a number of years. Creditors overwhelmingly approved the administrators’ plan to continue exploring the bids for uvine. Now they will have to assess the final offers and decide whether such a company rescue would be more in the creditors’ interests than liquidation. This decision will then be put to creditors for approval. Should the directors bid be successful it would reduce the possibility of legal action against them and also Wolloff believes that the creditor claim of £1.18 million from Trieste Investments Ltd would either be greatly reduced or withdrawn altogether. It is not known whether Perratt would also reduce or withdraw the claim for £86,507. ‘I do not know what Trieste's future intentions would be or, whether they have even decided whether they would run it or just close it.’ W |