by LESTER CROSS
The planned dissolution of the last remnants of the failed Avocet 'wonder' fuel project has been stopped dead in its tracks after a shareholder or creditor of the worthless business lodged an objection with the UK Companies Registrar.
At the same time, another Avocet entity which had total assets of more than £10 million, according to its last published accounts, has been dissolved via compulsory strike off, presumably for repeatedly failing to lodge financial information on time.
It had been expected that Genfro Ltd, or Son of Avocet, would be struck off the register of companies after the firm's joint life president Dr James R Jennings applied to have it terminated. He signed a Declaration accompanying the application dated March 26th of this year.
As a result, the companies regulator gave notice on April 16th that unless cause was shown to the contrary, Genfro, which never got round to manufacturing chemical products or anything else, would cease to exist two months later.
However, there have been claims that Jennings' application is invalid. Although he is listed as the sole director of Genfro, the company's Articles of Association specifically state that he and fellow joint life president Martin Frost cannot be directors and will play no part in managing the firm's operations.
Mr Frost remains disqualified from holding company directorships since he was declared bankrupt in 2021. A judge in a Leeds Court subsequently ruled that Frost breached his fiduciary duty as a company director by using £425,000 of the firm's cash to help buy two upmarket flats in Scarborough.
Meanwhile, the administrators of another insolvent Avocet business have been seeking to recoup £1.25 million from Jennings.
In a notice concerning Genfro which was published today, Companies House state: "Voluntary strike-off action has been suspended. Action pursuant to Section 1003 of the Companies Act 2006 for the striking off and dissolution of the above company has been suspended as an objection has been received by the Registrar".
The grounds for the objection have not been made public.
According to Government guidance for objecting to a voluntary strike-off: "You can object to a limited company being struck off the Companies Register if: you are a shareholder or other interested party, such as a creditor: you have a reason to stop the company being removed from the register - for example, you have a legal claim against them or they owe you money".
The hundreds of investors in the mythical Avocet project - it has been estimated they have lost more than £30 million - may well have been better advised to concentrate their attention on Avocet IP Ltd., another of the countless subsidiaries.
At one time it was in control of Frost and Jennings' collection of "extremely valuable" patents, intellectual property which attracted interest from global corporations and mystery investors, according to Frost. These exaggerated assertions may well have persuaded individuals to part with their cash.
Companies House has announced it will dissolve Avocet IP on May 21st by compulsory strike-off.
The business had not produced annual accounts since the end of 2019 when Frost was the signatory to the figures. The report claimed fixed assets of £13.060 million, and total assets less current liabilities of £10.1 million.
Then, in July 2021 shareholders were told that 90 per cent of the patents linked to the Avocet companies had been "lost" since 2019, reducing the value of intellectual property from a possible figure of £400 million to just £69 million.
Correspondence said to have been sent by Jennings to Frost at the time warned: "Dear Martin, This is not good news. We have filed some 120 cases in various countries and the majority have lapsed.
"Some others are still live pending further checks, but will need completion fees to be paid by June 30th. All of the rest have lapsed, with little chance of reinstating. The June date is absolute and must be paid if we are to recoup some value."
When told Avocet IP was to be killed off, an observer of the collapsed business 'empire' pointed out: "The intellectual property consisted of only four patent applications, not patents, and these applications had not been approved after four years despite the average approval time in the UK being 2.5 years".
Our source also commented: "Selling shares based on an impending purchase offer from imaginary investors is investment fraud. This is very serious. There have also been lesser offences such as an illegal name change (which requires shareholder approval that was not sought) and, of course, Jennings acting as a director of Genfro for two years despite being prohibited from doing so by the Articles of Association..
"The UK authorities' failure to act to protect investors despite numerous complaints made to them over years and their consistent failure to prosecute wrongdoers no matter how egregious the offence is appalling."
No comments:
Post a Comment