Wednesday 13 March 2024

"Payment for patents sold to Avocet 'extremely remote'" - liquidator

by OUR BUSINESS EDITOR

The intellectual property belonging to the forerunner of the insolvent Avocet Group of companies which was valued at £4 million in 2015 has still not been paid for following its 'sale' to an associated business now in compulsory liquidation.

Bankrupt Martin Frost, a director of AFS Ventures Ltd nine years ago when the company was to be wound up, signed a so-called Declaration of Solvency which claimed there would be a £1.1 million surplus after all debts were paid.

Later, the patents held by AFS, which had been involved in research and development for BioFuels, were supposed to have been 'sold' to Avocet Infinite PLC of which Mr Frost was chairman. And the 50,000 £1 shares in AFS were in the ownership of Loch Lomond Heritage, another firm controlled by the Frost family.

Avocet Infinite attracted 650 shareholders who invested many millions of pounds, hoping to benefit from that company's 'revolutionary air-to-fuel' developments. But not a single product was brought to market before Avocet Infinite changed its name to Omega Infinite before being liquidated.

The latest twist in the complicated nine-year liquidation process involving AFS is contained in a 'progress report' from insolvency expert Eric Walls, of KSA Group, who has been joint liquidator from the outset. He has now announced his intention to "bring my administration of this case to a close".

His newly published report covering the period January 2023 to January 2024 shows asset realisation during the 12 months totalled £14.76 (gross bank interest).

The AFS report says: "The only remaining asset detailed on the Statement of Affairs (SoA) was in respect of the company's intellectual property which had been sold to Omega Infinite PLC which is in compulsory liquidation, albeit the final level of consideration in respect of that sale has not been paid.

"It had been unclear as to whether any further funds would be realised in respect of the company's intellectual property due to the complexities of this matter and the compulsory liquidation of Omega. However, having reviewed the latest progress report from that liquidation, I now consider that the likelihood of any realisation in respect of the amounts owed for the intellectual property are extremely remote".

The only distribution of money to be made by Mr Walls will be to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs who filed a claim for £100,650 in respect of unpaid Value Added Tax (VAT).

Mr Walls adds: "For clarity, whilst remuneration of the liquidators remains outstanding in respect of the prior MVL (Members' Voluntary Liquidation), it is not intended to lodge a claim in this respect of this liquidation. We give notice that no dividend will become payable to the unsecured creditors in this liquidation."

One of those unfortunate creditors is law firm Womble Bond Dickson - due £75,000. A solicitor from the practice, Victoria Smith, witnessed the 2015 Declaration of Solvency.

According to Mr Walls: "There are a number of legal actions ongoing in respect of a number of matters, none of which the liquidators of the company, or the company itself, are party to. I am therefore unable to comment any further on these matters as these continuing disputes may result in further legal action".

And he concludes: "Based on the reports of the joint liquidators of Omega, it is now believed that no realisations will be made".

After reading Mr Walls' report, an individual who has followed the entire Frost/Avocet saga from the AFS Ventures days onwards commented: "So that is that and it only took nine years to get……..well, where? 


Tuesday 12 March 2024

Borders planning authority both for and against same scheme

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

An application from a business which was deemed by planning officers to be in line with Scottish Borders Council's approved Local Development Plan only three months ago is now being opposed by  the local authority which claims the proposal "is not in accordance with" the aforementioned development plan. 

The complete volte-face by the Borders planning authority comes after councillors decided by five votes to two to reject a recommendation for approval from their chief planning officer Ian Aikman.

Instead, the elected members dismissed proposals for the formation of storage space for agricultural machinery and equipment, and for up to 2,500 tonnes of potatoes on land at Mounthooly, near Jedburgh.

According to the committee decision: "The proposed development would lead to the loss of prime quality agricultural land" and use of the site for storage would not be compatible with or reflect the character of the surrounding area.

Following an appeal to the Scottish Government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division [DPEA] by Andrew Ramsay, of Kelso-based Ramsay Mounthooly Ltd., SBC now finds itself asking planning reporter Sarah Foster to reject the appeal. Ms Foster is due to carry out a site visit this week.

Among the 16 objectors to the original proposal was Ross Horrocks, owner of the award winning Borders restaurant The Caddy Mann which is situated close by the development site.

Mr Horrocks told planners: "As an immediate neighbour and a longstanding popular business, the application as it stands would have a serious detrimental effect both on our business and the wellbeing and safety of the other residents of Mounthooly.

"More recently, this reasonably quiet farmyard has turned into a busy industrial estate with a large amount of heavy traffic, numerous businesses operating from different buildings, and further buildings being erected causing both noise and light pollution".

The Caddy Mann has been named the UK's best game restaurant and overall Scottish champion, and has featured in the Visit Scotland awards for 14 consecutive years.

Professor John Darling, and his wife Pamela, who live in Mounthooly House, claimed in their objection letter that local residents had seen a transition from small scale seed potato storage to high intensity continual industrial activity with early morning starts and late evening and weekend working throughout the year.

In recommending approval for the scheme in a report to the December meeting of SBC's Planning and Building Standards Committee, Mr Aikman wrote: "The proposed use would not be incompatible with the existing land use pattern or the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

"The choice of site, layout, and scale of proposals will not result in further adverse impacts. The development will accord with the relevant provisions of the statutory Development Plan and there are no material considerations that would justify a departure from these provisions".

However, in her communication to the appeal reporter in the wake of the committee decision, the council's managing solicitor Sarah Thompson states: "It is submitted by the Planning Authority that the proposed development is not in accordance with the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the appeal should be dismissed."

Craig Smail, clerk of works at Lothian Estates, and agent for Mr Ramsay has pointed out to Ms Foster that in the 20 years of his client owning the adjacent site they had never known it to yield any agricultural produce. The small area of land (a paddock) made it impractical for modern-day machinery.

A decision on Mr Ramsay's appeal is expected by early April.

Monday 11 March 2024

Child abuse by Borders foster carers 'minimal', says council

by OUR OWN REPORTER

A detailed examination of local government minutes and reports covering an 84-year period from 1930 to 2014 has concluded that the scale and extent of abuse of children in foster care in the Scottish Borders has been 'limited' and 'minimal'.

The exercise was carried out to gather written evidence sent by Scottish Borders Council [SBC] to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry in response to a Notice requesting the local authority to provide information about the fostering service delivered by successive councils from 1930 onwards.

In its 91-page submission to the inquiry, the Borders local authority tells how the fostering service for children developed under the control of county councils (1930-1975), then Borders Regional Council (1975-1996) and finally by SBC since the last reform of local government.

All local authorities in Scotland have assembled written evidence on fostering for consideration by the long-running national investigation into child abuse.

According to the SBC report: "From 1930 onwards involvement of local authorities in the Scottish Borders in the provision of various forms of alternative care - boarding-out, residential care and foster care was largely driven by national government legislation, policy and guidance, which was then enacted on a local basis. The historic evidence reviewed also gives a strong sense of the principle of the welfare of children which is apparent throughout."

In response to questions about the funding of fostering, SBC says paying for boarding-out and fostering is recorded in all relevant governance and management meeting minutes from 1930 onwards. It is not clear from many of the historic sources how and to what extent fostering was funded overall and what budget was designated specifically for the care of children. From regionalisation in 1975 there is clarity in terms of the overall social work budgets and provision for childcare and fostering services.

From 1930 onwards there are references in county council minutes to funding other local authorities in meeting the costs for the care of children who originate from the Scottish Borders. These included residential resources and boarding-out and fostering arrangements. Placements of children in establishments such as Barnardo's Homes, the Orphan Homes of Scotland, St. Ninian's House of Falkland, etc. appear to have been paid on a spot purchase basis.

According to the Borders evidence: "Funding of those boarded-out or fostered was more generally subject to standardised, agreed funding and differentiation was made between placement of children with relatives and with 'strangers' - for example: Roxburghshire Public Health and Social Welfare Committee 15/11/1943 - the weekly allowances for boarded out children are recorded - (a) with strangers 12/6d for children up to 12 years of age and 15/- over 12, and (b) with liable relatives 10/- up to 12 years of age, and 12/6d over 12 years of age."

While the reasons for 'boarding out' children in the 1930s and 1940s were similar to decisions on fostering today, there were a number of unorthodox cases recorded in historic council papers.

An extract from Berwickshire Community Council Public Health and Public Assistance minutes for 04/02/1941 - refers to a "Juvenile delinquent,***** who, after appearing in the Sheriff Court in Duns on 27/12/1940 the Director of Education initiated arrangements for the girl to be received into the home of Mrs.*****, Bridgend, by Linlithgow at a charge of 15/- per week recoverable from the girl's father."

In terms of the number of children being fostered at any given time, the submission explains that the Roxburgh Public Health and Public Assistance Committee of 12/01/1931 lists 9 guardians receiving payment for looking after children (classed as Non-Resident Poor). The Borders Regional Council Social Work Committee Report of October 1994 - the Monitoring of Child Care Services - there were 22 Community Carers and 13 Foster Carers. The Scottish Borders Council Fostering Service currently registers foster carers in the following categories: • Short Term Foster Carers - 35 carer households (60 carers); 47 placements (and 13 Continuing Care placements in addition).

SBC also responded to a series of questions from the inquiry team specifically linked to instances of abuse of children.

Were there any changes in culture that were driven by abuse, or alleged abuse, of children in foster care?  If so, when did they occur and how did they manifest themselves? In 2011 A Scottish Borders Council foster carer was convicted of the sexual abuse of two young people in his care. Following the disclosures and review of the case, the practice of statutory visits to children in care placements was reviewed. The Children and Families Practice Standards were changed to ensure children and young people in placements are visited at least monthly. Children should also be seen on their own. 

"In 2014 a foster carer was deregistered following a series of incidents of concerning supervision of children in her care, and subsequent minimisation of the potential consequences of this lack of supervision. Following the case, guidance was issued for managing situations where there are incidents of repeated allegations of poor practice about carers."

Does the local authority accept that between 1930 and 17 December 2014 any children cared for in foster care were abused? There is knowledge of children cared for in foster care who were abused.
 If so, what is the local authority's assessment of the extent and scale of such abuse? The records available only allow identification of the incidents set out at Part D which would indicate limited extent and scale.

Does the local authority accept that its systems failed to protect children in foster care between 1930 and 17 December 2014 from abuse? The local authority do not consider that this would be a suitable inference to draw based on the information available. The Borders Regional Council Child Abuse Registrar 31/12/1976 reference to the Social Work Department's responsibility to compile a list of "children considered to be 'at risk' of non-accidental injury." Reference states the register had been established 18 months prior to the meeting and that there were 15 children on the register. There are brief case studies included in the papers, but none refer to children looked after in foster care.

What is the local authority's assessment of the scale and extent of abuse of children in foster care? Scottish Borders Council believe the scale and extent of abuse of children in foster care to be minimal. This does not detract however from the very serious nature of any incident of abuse, particularly when it has occurred within a foster care setting.

How many complaints have been made in relation to alleged abuse of children in foster care? Eight individuals but in two cases, concerns were around general care, discipline and inappropriate chastisement and are likely to have involved a number of children. Against how many foster carers have the complaints referred to above been made? 10 carer households (14 individual carers). How many foster carers have been convicted of, or admitted to, abuse of children? One foster carer has been convicted of the abuse of children 

How many foster carers have been found by the local authority to have abused children? Seven carer households (nine individual carers). This assessment is based on the small number of incidents of abuse and alleged abuse which have been reported since 1990, set against the numbers of children and young people cared for by the Scottish Borders Council Fostering Service over this period.

Thursday 7 March 2024

£70,000 charity executive claims unfair dismissal

by DOUG COLLIE 

The former chief operating officer of a Borders-based charity which supports people with learning difficulties claims to have been sacked on the spot following disclosures he made about Brothers of Charity Services (Scotland) [BOC] to national watchdog The Care Inspectorate.

Gary McManus, who was receiving a salary of £70,000 at the time of his dismissal last November, voiced concerns about several aspects of the charity's operations at a Teams meeting with the Inspectorate's Lynne Hepburn only days before his employment was terminated.

But an Employment Tribunal (ET) hearing heard that management at BOC denied any link between Mr McManus talking to Ms Hepburn and his sacking. Instead, he had been told to leave his executive post because of "issues in the working relationship" between him and BOC.

Stuart Neilson, an ET judge, has rejected Mr McManus's application for so-called interim relief to preserve his employment status until the tribunal has decided a claim for unfair dismissal.

But the written judgment explains that this decision is purely in the context of the application and has no bearing upon any final decision in the case when the Tribunal and the parties will have had the benefit of hearing oral testimony, with appropriate cross examination, and consideration of all relevant documentary evidence.

Mr McManus was employed by the charity from March 2022 until November 2023 during which time his annual salary increased from an initial £54,000 to £70,000. The claimant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed and that the reason or principal reason was due to the disclosures that he made to the Care Inspectorate.

According to the tribunal report, Mr McManus made the following disclosures to Ms Hepburn: "(a) Concerns regarding governance and compliance issues within the respondent [Brothers of Charity Services (Scotland)]; (b) That he understood there had been a practice within the respondent of falsifying the files that the respondent held for each registered manager. In particular that there was a standard file that met the requirements that the Care Inspectorate might look for with regard to a registered manager and the practice had been simply to use that standard file but change the name of the registered manager on the file – so that in reality the file did not actually relate to that specific registered manager. 

"(C) That there had been a failure to provide incident reports (“Notifications”) to the Care Inspectorate. These Notifications, which were a legal requirement, relate to any adult protection concern – which might include e.g. abuse, significant harm or staffing issues. Some of the failures went as far back as 2008/2009. (d) Issues around the undermining, by the respondent, of the approved management review and restructure that had been approved by the respondent in April 2023. (e) Flip flopping on decision making within the respondent – in terms of inconsistency in dealing with people issues such as performance."

Mr McManus alleged that he made these disclosures as he wanted to reset the relationship between the respondent and the Care Inspectorate and to demonstrate transparency and ownership of issues. This followed a Care Inspectorate report into BOC in the summer of 2023 that had given the respondent a “weak” rating.

As a consequence of making these disclosures the claimant alleged that was called to a Teams meeting on 30 November 2023 with the Chief Executive, Jane Moore and the head of HR, Fiona MacDonald. At that meeting he was notified that his employment was terminated with immediate effectThe dismissal was pre-determined. He was given no opportunity to answer any of the allegations. There was no fair process and no right of appeal.

Daniel Gorry, solicitor representing BOC, told the tribunal the respondent was unaware of the content of the discussions on the call between Mr McManus and Ms Hepburn but had been advised by the manager at the Care Inspectorate that the claimant complained about the managers within the Social Work department of the respondent’s funder, Scottish Borders Council.

The respondent was also able to point to a timeline that showed the real reason for dismissal was not linked to the alleged disclosures. In particular Mr Gorry highlighted that there were issues in the working relationship between the claimant and the respondent.

He drew attention to a breakdown in the relationship between Fiona MacDonald and the claimant from September 2023 and concerns the CEO had about unprofessional e mails from the claimant. Mr Gorry referred to e mail exchanges between Fiona MacDonald and the claimant on 27 and 28 September 2023 that he suggested showed unfair criticism of Fiona MacDonald by the claimant regarding an employee’s registration details.

Mr Gorry submitted that all of this culminated in the CEO speaking to the Chair of the Board, Brother John O’Shea, on 20 November 2023 to discuss the continued employment of the claimant. They agreed to seek legal advice and a decision was made to terminate the claimant’s employment. That was actioned on Thursday 30 November 2023 when the claimant returned from annual leave.

BOC Services (Scotland) with a staffing headcount of around 250 supports over 80 individuals in the Borders ranging in age from 22-85 years, and has also provided care at home services.

The purpose of the charity "is to provide care and support to individuals that makes a real and meaningful difference to their lives".

An annual report published in 2022 noted: "Our staff turnover rate this year hit a record high of 30% and the main contributing factors are in line with the sector-wide profile - exhaustion, anxiety, stress, frustration at the lack of recognition in the wider community of social care staff".

In that year BOC received total income of £6.7 million while the cost of delivering its services totalled £6.9 million


Tuesday 5 March 2024

Spiralling debt revealed for failed 'cutting edge' business

by OUR BUSINESS UNIT

The money owed to a secured creditor by a failed 'disruptive technology' agri-business based in Berwickshire has skyrocketed by more than 80 per cent since administrators were sent in four years ago, according to a newly released report.

Orrdone Farms Ltd (previously called Avocet Farms) was controlled by businessmen Martin Frost and Dr Robert Jennings prior to its crash in 2020. Instead of revolutionising farm production and green fuel manufacture, as promised, the firm now has creditors claiming more than £11 million, and there are insufficient funds even to pay administrator Emma Porter.

A progress report on the administration by Ms Porter shows the sum due to secured creditor United Kingdom Agricultural Lending Ltd [UKALL] totalled £3.25 million at the date of her appointment in January 2020. With interest and charges, the figure at December 1st, 2023 stood at £5.89 million, an increase of 81.2% with interest continuing to run until the debt has been settled.

The courts recently granted an extension to the administration until January 2026. The latest report to creditors covers the period July 2023 to January 2024.

Ms Porter writes: "There has been no change in the period in relation to the non-cooperation of the directors (the board included Mr Frost and Dr Jennings). Extensive correspondence continues to be circulated to a wide variety of parties directly commenting on the administration procedure and the administrator personally. It remains my view that this correspondence is both inaccurate and inappropriate".

The report says that despite the unfortunate obstruction and deflection tactics employed by the directors, progress has been made with the sale of the company's assets.

"Numerous allegations have been made by the directors about assets and liabilities of the company, none of which have been able to be substantiated due to the lack of evidence provided".

Ms Porter considers that a significant sum is due to the company by Dr Jennings, and solicitors have been instructed to pursue this matter.

In a section of the report covering the bankruptcies of Mr Frost and his wife Janet Orr Frost, the administrator explains that she has submitted claims in both cases. "But the complexities of the case make it uncertain that a dividend will be available".

During the course of the administration process considerable time has been spent in an attempt to reconstruct certain financial records of the company. But this has been attempted using limited, incomplete and often outdated information delivered from a variety of sources.

The report also points out: "Potential creditors include 29 companies associated with the Avocet Group. It remains the view of the administrator that these companies are not genuine creditors".

Ms Porter states there are insufficient funds to meet the costs of the administration which has so far involved expenditure of £614,000.

She adds: "There are several areas where time costs have been incurred that have not been charged, such as dealing with police matters and inflammatory correspondence from the director [presumably Mr Frost]. The administrator has agreed to write off these costs. The total deduction in time costs is £98,343."




Monday 4 March 2024

Borders councillor cleared by Standards Commission

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

An unnamed member of Scottish Borders Council did not breach the councillors' code of conduct, a 16-month investigation by the Standards Commission for Scotland has concluded. A complaint lodged against the councillor in question has been dismissed.

Details of the case are contained in a written decision issued by the Commission's executive director Lorna Johnston. 

The report shows that following his investigation into a complaint received in October 2022 concerning an alleged contravention of the versions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by an elected member of Scottish Borders Council (the respondent), the Ethical Standards Commissioner [ESC] referred the matter to the Standards Commission on February 22nd 2024. 

The complaint concerned an allegation that the respondent had failed to declare an interest at two meetings of the Council’s Common Good Fund Sub Committee, held on November 17th 2021 and  November 23rd 2022. The complaint also claimed that the respondent may have accepted a free or reduced-price pitch at a local event held by a local company on common good land, in contravention of the code’s provisions regarding gifts and hospitality.

In his report, Ian Bruce, the ESC advised that he had found: "The respondent had been able to demonstrate that payments were made by his business to the local company for pitches at events in 2018, 2019 and 2022. As such, there was no evidence that any gifts or hospitality had been received. There was also no evidence to suggest that the respondent had sought any preferential treatment for his company."

 The ESC added that while the local company had benefited from the council’s policy not to charge certain organisations for the use of common good land, there was no evidence of a connection between the respondent (and his business) and the local company that went beyond what might be expected of local businesses. 

"In any event, the respondent had paid for his pitch and, therefore, any benefit enjoyed by the local company as a result of the council’s decision was not passed on to him."

The investigation also concluded: "While the respondent knew some of the directors of the local company and that his business had paid for pitches at an event run by it, there was no evidence of any other connection. 

"As such, the ESC was unable to conclude that a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard the respondent’s connection as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice his discussion or decision-making at either meeting. The ESC indicated, therefore, that he did not consider that the Respondent had been required to declare an interest at either meeting.

"Having considered the various factors of the complaint and the evidence gathered, the ESC concluded that the respondent’s conduct did not amount to a breach of the code."

After considering the terms of his referral, the Standards Commission did not consider that it was necessary or appropriate to direct the ESC to undertake any further investigation into the matter.

Ms Johnston explains that in making a decision about whether to hold a hearing, the Standards Commission took into account both public interest and proportionality considerations

In assessing the public interest, the Standards Commission noted that a breach of the provisions in the code that required councillors to declare certain interests and to refrain from accepting certain gifts and hospitality could bring the role of a councillor and the council itself into disrepute. 

"In this case, however, the Standards Commission was of the view that, on the face of it, there was no evidence of any such breach of the code. The Standards Commission noted that holding a hearing (with the associated publicity) could promote the provisions of the code and, therefore, there could be some limited public interest in holding a hearing." 

The Commission noted, however, that the option to take no action had been included in legislation to ensure that neither the ethical standards framework, nor the Standards Commission, was brought into disrepute by spending public funds on administrative or legal processes in cases that did not, on balance, warrant such action. 

"In considering proportionality, the Standards Commission noted that the ESC, in his referral, had reached the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct did not amount, on the face of it, to a breach of the code. Having reviewed the evidence before it, the Standards Commission found no reason to depart from that conclusion. 

"Having taken into account the above factors, and in particular the fact that it is not satisfied, on the face of it, that the conduct as established could amount to a breach of the code, the Standards Commission concluded that it was neither proportionate, nor in the public interest, for it to hold a hearing."

 


Saturday 2 March 2024

Frost the serial litigant handed two court orders

by OUR CRIME REPORTER

He has threatened legal action against business 'enemies', lawyers, ex-employees, and even senior law enforcement officers on countless occasions following the spectacular financial collapse of a string of companies he once controlled.

But now, bankrupt vexatious litigant Martin Frost, who has also warned he would sue the proprietor of this blogging site during our coverage of his activities over the past five years, has himself felt the full weight of the law after a Scottish sheriff found him guilty of stalking two women and causing them fear and alarm.

In a case which has its origins as far back as 2018, Frost - once head of the Avocet 'air-or-dung-to-fuel' empire - was the subject of a five-day trial which ended in Jedburgh Sheriff Court on Thursday with him being fined a total of £2,000, and served with two non-harassment orders. There was also a conviction for  threatening behaviour aimed at a male Frost had targeted.

Attempts by court staff to bring the case to trial were repeatedly frustrated when Frost, who lives in Scarborough, failed to turn up for hearings before the sheriff, citing ill health and rare medical conditions. In December of last year he was warned that any further delaying tactics would result in his arrest.

As regular readers of these columns will know, Frost repeatedly used letters and statements sent to Avocet's 650 shareholders to attack his two female victims. He alleged they had stolen millions of pounds from various businesses which are now either being liquidated or are in administration.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby contacted both women to ask how they felt now that their lengthy ordeal at the hands of Frost had ended. We have decided not to name them to spare them further anxiety and hurt.

The first victim - a Scottish Borders resident - told us: "Its been a long time coming after a really tough time for us. There is some relief it's all over so far as this case is done, though it was really unpleasant because the two of us took the decision to forgo the right to use video link and endure Frost cross examining us.  

 "He is such an unpleasant character, a real Jekyll and Hyde.  A family member was in court: she was just astonished at his lies.  He did lie all the way through the trial."

And she added "However, this doesn’t make me feel much safer, because he is obviously so obsessed with us which is the real problem. The non-harassment orders are really welcome, it will give us some comfort, but he won’t be able to maintain the silence for long.

 "It's time now not to reflect but to move on. I think we had a measured procurator fiscal who kept us informed, and a judge who gave Frost 'enough rope to hang himself'.

Frost's second victim, who left the Borders as a direct result of her experiences commented: "The last few weeks have brought back some awful memories from a period in my life which I hoped would, in all honesty, disappear.

"Being cross examined directly by the accused was sickening. However, the outcome was what we had hoped for and justice prevailed.

"Although what happened will never go away from my memory, I hope that both of us can draw the proverbial line in the sand, and move forward with our lives."

All of Frost's public threats to take hordes of individuals to court both here and in Delaware, USA, have proven to be nothing more than bluster. And as a vexatious litigant he cannot raise actions in the Scottish courts without the approval of a senior judge.

This example from June 2020 is typical of the forthcoming (but non-existent) criminal and civil litigation Frost was peddling.

He told Avocet's long-suffering investors who seem likely to have lost all of their money in worthless shares: "On Thursday, 18th June 2020, Police Scotland advised me that their report  to the Procurator Fiscal was pending and it was now OK for Avocet to proceed with further criminal complaints (involving some £1.5 million of theft & fraud against Avocet) and bring civil actions (amounting to over £5 million in loss and damages).

"Most regrettably such actions will again fall upon my wife’s family and some other Avocet shareholders. A resume of these complaints including the current conspiracy and badmouthing charges against their acolytes and publicists will be forwarded to you, Avocet’s owners, for this Monday 22nd June 2020.

"For the avoidance of doubt: on Monday 22nd June, 2020, prior to service of further criminal complaints and civil actions, Avocet owners shall be advised against whom and for what such actions shall be taken – regrettably the naming of names does include some Avocet shareholders who have sought to rob and defraud their fellow shareholders along with publicists".

October 2020 saw the first threat by Frost to raise court action in the US state of Delaware against individuals who had been forwarding his shareholders' letters to non-investors including this blogging website.

Then, in May 2021, the ex-Avocet chairman announced a £5 million 'war chest' to fund at least nine separate law suits, including one aimed at Scotland's Crown Office and another at Police Scotland. The money was to come from the sale of intellectual property to mystery buyers.

There is no evidence that any of these threatened lawsuits were ever filed in court or that 'valuable' Avocet patents were sold.