Disruptive technology Avocet Group to be "terminated"

by OUR BUSINESS UNIT

The bankrupt former chairman of the Avocet Group of companies has announced that all of the UK businesses which were supposed to be involved in ground breaking agricultural practices and fuel production are to be terminated.

Martin Frost is disqualified from involvement in the running of companies following confirmation of his bankruptcy by a judge last October.

But in a so-called Personal Note to 'colleagues' who have invested many millions of pounds in the troubled Avocet Group, Mr Frost outlines plans to develop the company's concepts abroad. So far not a single commercial product has been brought to market since Mr Frost and his fellow directors founded the business in 2014.

A number of investigations into Avocet's activities are continuing while businesses within the organisation are in liquidation or administration with long lists of creditors. One lending company is owed more than £3 million, and many shareholders now believe their investments are worthless.

According to Mr Frost's note, dated May 27th: "In 2014 AFS Ventures Plc set up two US Delaware based subsidiaries. These companies are now owned by Genfro Limited."

It is perhaps worth noting that according to Genfro Ltd's articles both Mr Frost and his colleague Dr Bob Jennings are life presidents of that company with annual index-linked honorariums of £24,000.

Mr Frost's correspondence continues: "In January 2015, Dr. Glyn Short (a former ICI scientist) formulated a strong business plan to focus the Avocet business from Delaware in the US. 

"I regret that I was induced to centre the Avocet business in Scotland. That said Israeli friends have now conditionally offered 1.2 billion shekels on a tapered purchase for extant & to be intellectual property, such to be directly controlled from the US & Israel. This means that all UK based companies shall be terminated. 

"A committee under Dr. Bob Jennings shall ensure a fair distribution of monies coming into the US to existing & past shareholders & creditors of Genfro Limited, Avocet Natural Capital Plc, and Omega Infinite Plc. Going forward the Avocet related concepts will be developed in Israel, the EU, and North America."

The note then indicates that further updates including notice of significant exit rewards shall start "late Sunday 29th May 2022." Questions will be taken and answered after June 15th, 2022.

A long-suffering Avocet investor who passed a copy of Mr Frost's note to Not Just Sheep & Rugby commented: "More baloney. We were promised payment for our shareholdings months ago by Martin Frost but all we get is one delaying tactic after another".

The latest developments in the long running saga sparked intense activity on the Avocet Shareholders' Forum where individuals post their comments and air their frustrations.

A contribution from 'Concerned' reads as follows: "In his “personal note” of  May 27th, 2022, Frost tells us that he has negotiated a sale price of 1.2 billion shekels for the Avocet and Gennfros IP. That works out to approximately £285 million. How disappointing! A little over a month ago Frost was promising us that he would conclude the sale of the same IP to these same Israelis for £400M and that it would be paid to us at the beginning of May. 

"This represents a decrease in the sale price in one month of almost 30%! I don’t know about you, but I think that due to poor performance, we may need a new negotiator to act on our behalf!! - aside from the fact that Frost is already legally prohibited by law from acting in an executive capacity on behalf of Avocet or any company!"

This prompted responses from another investor identified as FDF.

He wrote: "I am afraid that I have more bad news. I follow these matters somewhat closely. The two US entities that Frost speaks of are Avocet Solutions Inc. and Avocet Inc. Both are registered in Delaware. 

"According to the Delaware Secretary of State, both Avocet, Inc. and Avocet Solutions Inc. are not in good standing. They have been marked “void” which indicates they have not paid their franchise taxes or have not filed their annual reports with the State, in this case, since 2018. Given this, and the fact that all of the IP (intellectual property) was transferred to Avocet Infinite and then ultimately on to Avocet IP, I question why the Israelis would have any interest in either of these companies?"

 The same Forum poster then advised: "Ask your MP why complaints that affect 700+ investors and involve in excess of £13M are taking so long to be addressed? Especially given that the validity of some of the complaints should be dead simple to determine. 

"For example, we were enticed into investing in Gennfros with the promise from Frost that “mystery investors” would almost immediately buy our shares at 300% of what we just paid for them. Why hasn’t the Insolvency Service been able to verify the simple fact of the mystery investors’ existence, or, if they have, why have they not acted on it?"

Failed attempt to overturn £177,000 tribunal judgment

by OUR BUSINESS STAFF

The only remaining director of a crisis-hit member of the Avocet group of companies has made an unsuccessful bid to have a £177,000 award to a former executive reconsidered by the employment tribunal service.

Avocet IP Ltd., involved in the patents and intellectual property business, failed to appear at a tribunal hearing held in March before Employment Judge Johnson. The claimant at the Manchester hearing was Iain Munro, Avocet's one time project director.

Mr Munro, employed by the company from 2018 to 2020, was successful with his claim that Avocet management had illegally deducted wages, in breach of employment law.

As we reported previously Judge Johnson ordered Avocet IP to pay Mr Munro £177,313 in what was yet another case brought against the group by ex-employees. In each instance the worker concerned has been successful with his or her claim.

Judge Johnson's published decision on the application for reconsideration of his judgment shows the bid for a "re-trial" had been made by Dr 'Bob' Jennings who was left as the sole director of Avocet IP following the enforced resignation of his business colleague Martin Frost. Mr Frost was declared bankrupt last October, and bankrupts are not permitted to hold company directorships.

In a case update the judge declares: "The respondent’s application dated 25 March 2022 (and further email dated 4 April 2022) for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 18 March 2022 is refused. There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked".

 Judge Johnson then sets out his reasons for the decision as follows:

"1. Although the respondent’s representative has not formally requested that his emails be treated as application for reconsideration, it appears that he was effectively asking that reconsideration take place.

 "2. The Tribunal’s letter dated 1 April 2022 provided my summary of why the hearing 14 March 2022 should proceed in the absence of a respondent representative.

 "3. Mr Jennings has failed to provide any additional medical evidence in support of his application that reconsideration take place as requested by the Tribunal’s letter of 1 April 2022.

 "4. Mr Jennings is referred to my comments included in the Tribunal’s letter of 1 April 2022 and in the absence of any further relevant medical evidence being provided, I must conclude that it is not in the interests of justice to allow the application for reconsideration to proceed."

Avocet IP is one of several companies in the group who are way behind with their paperwork and filing of documents with Companies House.

Annual accounts for the year to December 31st 2020 should have been provided by September 30th 2021, but there is still no sign of them.

In addition, an updated Confirmation Statement was due to be filed by October 22nd 2021, but that document is also missing from the Companies House file.

An active proposal to strike off Avocet IP Ltd. from the register of companies was suspended in January.

 

 

Lowood development plans under fire

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Scottish Borders Council's planning application for the initial roads and infrastructure on the high amenity Lowood Estate, near Melrose, has come in for criticism from the local authority's own landscape architect who claims considerably more information is needed about the proposals.

The land at Lowood, purchased by the council in 2018 for £11 million, including professional fees, will be used for the development of several hundred houses together with commercial and amenity facilities in what amounts to an expansion of Tweedbank village.

In her written observations on the roads and infrastructure lay-out landscape expert Siobhan McDermott outlines the shortcomings and recommends several additions before the current application can be approved.

She has assessed the proposals in the context of the Supplementary Planning Guidance [SPG] and the Design Guide for Lowood.

Ms McDermott points out that in the Design Guide the strategic objectives are clearly outlined, and include delivering new development sustainably and sensitively within the attractive landscape setting, delivering a development with a strong sense of place and sympathetic to its site and setting, and respecting the core landscape, natural environmental assets and topography of the site and its surroundings

"At Section 5 – Heritage, Biodiversity and Landscape, the Vision for the development of the estate, the baseline character of the estate landscape, the Strategy approach to development and clear Instruction on how to address the various element that make up and contribute to the quality of the estate, have been laid out. At 5.5.3 Woodlands and Trees, in order to retain as many trees as possible, both a Tree Survey and an appraisal of the landscape and visual effects of development is required."

Her assessment states: "My concerns at the level of information supplied to satisfy the SPG and Design Guide are as following:

"Neither a tree survey nor a landscape and visual appraisal of the road proposal (of an appropriate scale) has been submitted.

"No Road Layout Masterplan has been submitted as part of this application which would place this development into context and explain the design rationale.

"On Drawing 201 there is no explanation for the red line boundary on the north side of the woodland (opposite and north of the ATN link between the newly extended Tweedside Road and the existing Lowood access road)

"On Drawing 200 there is no explanation for the removal of 24 metres of the estate wall along the Lowood road as there is no entrance or other works described at this location."

And Ms McDermott adds that on both Drawing 200 and 201, there is an ambiguous note ‘ALL TREES TO REMAIN UNLESS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING.’ The meaning of this note needs rewording for clarity, in her view, and she suggests - perhaps ‘All trees to be retained except those shown (red) for removal on this drawing.’ with the key/note showing removed tree symbol in red, for clarity.

But criticism of the documentation lodged with SBC's planning application does not end there.   

According to Ms McDermott: "There is no explanation of why it is necessary to raise the ground levels over sections of the road by as much as 2.6 metres and what the visual impact of this will be on the local landscape. Nor is there any explanation of why a section of new road runs alongside and parallel with a part of the existing driveway rather than the driveway being widened to form this part of the new road layout.

"In addition to a tree survey, an arboricultural impact assessment (AIA) based on the development proposal (i.e. the proposed road), a tree constraints plan, an arboricultural method statement (AMS) and a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) by a competent arboriculturalist are all needed to provide the level of information required to demonstrate that the road can be built without damaging the existing tree resource."

"In addition to the above, a detailed soft landscaping scheme is required which should provide detail of tree species, shrub and wetland plants, grass mixes species together with a schedule to allow a planting scheme to be put in place on completion of the development and should include a future maintenance programme."

In summary, Ms McDermott claims that to satisfy the SPG and Design Guide and in order to act as an exemplar of best practice, more information in the form of a design statement, a simple landscape and visual appraisal and a tree survey with associated documents, as listed above, for the land within and immediately adjacent to the site (all areas shown outlined in red on the Location Plan) is required to allow a proper assessment of this proposal.

"Should this proposal be consented, in order to protect the landscape going forward, I would want to see conditions relating to a detailed planting scheme and Tree Protection to be applied. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft landscaping works, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority".

Hawick's "Parkgate": The Sequel.

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

A further attempt to have the Victorian gates at the entrance to a former country estate near Hawick deprived of their 'listed' designation is being strenuously resisted by Historic Environment Scotland amid continuing disagreements about their status among neighbours at Linden Park.

Today's deadline for written submissions to planning reporter Christian Leigh coincided with the publication of a comprehensive response from HES rebutting the arguments of appellant Tom West, who lives in a bungalow on the site of the former Linden Park House.

As we reported in March, a planning appeal to have 'C' listed status removed from the gates and gate piers at Linden Park with a view to having the architectural feature moved on road safety grounds had been thrown out by a Scottish Government planning reporter. 

That reporter, Stuart West concluded: "I am satisfied that a full and thorough assessment of the subjects’ architectural and historic interest has been undertaken as part of the designation process and I agree with Historic Environment Scotland’s conclusions."

HES decided the gates required special protection following an approach from Hawick Archaeological Society in 2020.

But in his appeal statement, Tom West claims: "Firstly, that the decision (by HES) is based upon inaccurate and misleading information. Secondly that the Listing Process followed for the Linden Park gates is flawed and not in accordance with the Designation Policy and Selection Guidance (2019) document or with recognised good management standards. Thirdly that in this case Historic Environment Scotland do not have the legal power to list the gates."

However, the newly published response from HES seeks to demolish Mr West's case as well as the objections of other interested parties.

HES maintains: "It is our view that the Linden Park Gates are of special architectural or historic interest.

"The first reason put forward (by the appellant) is that our decision was based on inaccurate and misleading information related to the dating of the gates and the lack of definite attribution of the architect. The information provided by the appellant gives further detail about the designer, manufacturer, and installation of the gates. However, this information is not new and does not put into question the special architectural or interest of the structures.

The two other reasons against listing relate to the listing process followed by Historic Environment Scotland and the powers which Historic Environment Scotland has to list. As these two reasons do not relate to whether the site is of special architectural or historic interest, we will not be taking these into account in detail in our response to the Statement of Appeal but have provided some observations for clarification purposes."

Setting out its reasons for listing the gates, HES states: "These reasons relate primarily to the building’s design, setting, age and rarity, and social historical interest. Design - They are bespoke, decorative gate piers and gates built as part of a high quality design scheme for a small country house estate.

"Setting - They are largely unaltered and retain their immediate, later 19th century setting. Age and rarity - The organic, floriate Arts and Crafts design of the gates is an early example of this style of ironwork in Scotland. They are an early example of a gateway designed with electric lighting. Social historical interest - The gates help inform our understanding of a small country house estate with an association with the textile industry."

And the written response adds: "The Appellant has questioned the information we have considered to arrive at our decision to list the gates; but other than providing evidence of dating and probable authorship, they have not specifically discounted other factors relating to the special interest of the structure in their appeal statement.

"This information does not put into question the special interest of the gates. Rather, the additional information helps us to confirm the available evidence about the estate we have already reviewed and further reinforces the fact that the gates are an early example of electrification for domestic use on a country estate. The novelty of the electrification led to several contemporary newspaper reports."

HES concludes: Our view is that the appellant’s observations have not cast doubt on the special architectural or historic interest of Linden Park Gates but has referred to issues unrelated to the grounds for appeal.

Inquiry to hear MOD wind farm fears

SPECIAL FEATURE by DOUG COLLIE

The Ministry of Defence will mount a strong challenge in a bid to prevent development of a 45-turbine wind farm in the Borders when a public inquiry into the highly controversial project gets underway in Hawick next month.

Expert witnesses will be called by counsel representing the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace to demonstrate the potential harm the Faw Side wind farm could have on the so-called Eskdalemuir Array, the only seismic monitoring station in the United Kingdom. 

If allowed, the closest Faw Side turbine would be only four kilometres from the MOD establishment which traces underground nuclear tests as they occur up to 15,000 kilometres from Eskdalemuir.

The site for the largest wind farm ever to be proposed in the Scottish Borders would cover a vast area in both the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway council areas. The scheme has attracted a large number of objections which will be considered alongside the case for the applicants, by inquiry reporter Claire Milne.

CWL Energy Ltd. is promoting the Faw Side facility, and claim the impact on this largely unspoilt tract of countryside which includes hundreds of historic sites and monuments, would be minimal.

The MOD has set out its case in a 42-page written submission from the Ministry's agents, Edinburgh law firm Morton Fraser. The Secretary of State will be represented at the inquiry by Ruth Crawford QC.

The MOD 'Statement of Case'  claims the wind farm "will have a significant and detrimental impact on the operation and capability of the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station ("the Array"). This aspect of the MOD objection is based on the MOD's position that the proposed development would cause the Eskdalemuir threshold (also known as the Eskdalemuir noise budget and referred to in this Statement of Case as "the Eskdalemuir threshold") to be exceeded; and (b) it is premature having regard to the work currently being undertaken by the Eskdalemuir Working Group ("EWG"), which will inform both the Scottish Government and the MOD's future policy and approach to the safeguarding of the Array."

In respect of the Ministry's objection, the MOD understands the Applicant's position to be wholly based upon a technical report which it commissioned from Heriot Watt University.

"The report concludes that there is more than sufficient headroom (i.e., capacity) within the Eskdalemuir threshold so as to permit the construction of the proposed development without compromising the detection capabilities of the Array. On that basis, it is understood that the Applicant considers that the impacts of the proposed development upon the Array are acceptable. MOD does not accept this as a proposition."

At the first session of the inquiry at Hawick's Mansfield House Hotel, the MOD intends to lead three witnesses in support of its case: Steve Laws, Assistant Head, Nuclear Threat Reduction, Defence Nuclear Organisation, MOD; Desmond Egan, Assistant Head of Estates, Safeguarding, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, and Dr David Bowers, Seismologist, AWE Blacknest.

The MOD submission states: "The [Eskdalemuir] Array is the UK's primary asset for monitoring underground nuclear tests, and therefore must be protected. Further, the United Kingdom is a signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (“CTBT”) which bans nuclear test explosions. The CTBT was ratified by the UK on 6 April 1998. Under the CTBT, the MOD is designated the ‘National Authority’ for the purposes of securing the UK’s compliance with the terms of the CTBT.

"As part of its obligations under the CTBT, the MOD is required to keep in place seismic equipment which monitors and detects nuclear-test explosions as part of the International Monitoring System (“IMS”) network under the CTBT. The IMS network is part of the CTBT verification regime and will consist of 321 monitoring stations, of which the Array is one. The Array is the only one in the UK."

If the MOD failed to safeguard properly the Array and protect it from interference as a result of wind farm development, the UK would be in breach of this international obligation to protect global peace and security.

"The installation of wind turbines in the vicinity of the Array which could unacceptably compromise the detection capabilities of the Array itself would effectively remove the only monitoring site in the UK from the overall IMS. This would be interpreted internationally as the UK distancing itself from its CTBT obligations and its NPT disarmament obligations in particular. The UK’s reputation as a responsible Nuclear Weapon State would be undermined. Further, the UK’s commitment to the CTBT and NPT would be brought into question. More broadly, the UK’s ability to deter and monitor nuclear weapons development around the world, and ultimately to limit nuclear proliferation, would be undermined."

And the submission adds: "Since it started operations in 1962, the Array has detected approximately 645 P-wave signals associated with (presumed) underground nuclear test-explosions occurring up to 15,000 km from the Array. The Array has detected P waves from many smaller underground chemical explosions, for example an announced chemical explosion equivalent to 100 tons of TNT detonated in Kazakhstan during August 1998. The Array has detected P waves from all six nuclear tests announced by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea since 2006."

The proposed development would consist of 45 wind turbines, with an installed capacity of 315 megawatts. The proposed turbines are located between approximately 10km and approximately 16km from the Array Station Location, with the closest turbine being approximately 4km from seismometer R10.

"The Applicant appears to accept that the detection capabilities of the Array must not be compromised by the construction of wind turbine proposals. The Applicant's position is that the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing Eskdalemuir threshold and without the threshold being breached. 

"The Applicant has not produced any forensically sound seismological evidence which can be accepted by MOD to demonstrate that such a proposition is well founded. MOD's position is that the Eskdalemuir threshold is presently exhausted, it having been exhausted in 2018 by the present application. The MOD's position is that the proposed development cannot presently be accommodated within the Eskdalemuir threshold. MOD must therefore maintain its objection."

According to the MOD The Applicant has produced no evidence as to the seismological impact the 45 turbines would have upon the detection capacities of the Array, at the Array itself. It is the MOD's position that the construction of this number of turbines in such proximity to the Array will exceed any additional capacity which may exist in the Eskdalemuir threshold at the present time.

MOD warns the effectiveness of the Array might be unwittingly compromised by a number of consents being issued in a short space of time. There is no formal oversight of the cumulative impacts other than by the MOD. The Array is a major but necessary constraint on additional wind farm development in the consultation zone. The proposed FSWF is simply too large and too close to the Array for it to be constructed without unacceptably compromising the effectiveness and detection capabilities of the Array. The MOD cannot allow such a situation to occur.

"The MOD maintains its objection to the proposed Faw Side Wind Farm development. This is because the proposed development will unacceptably compromise the detection capabilities of the Array. The MOD's objection on this basis should be given considerable weight."

Borders farm subsidy average highest in Scotland

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Over a thousand eligible farm businesses in the Scottish Borders received average payments of more than £51,000 from CAP funds in 2019, the highest mean figure in any of Scotland's 14 agricultural regions, according to new research published by the Scottish Government.

The level of financial support from subsidies for the rural economy of the Borders is there for all to see in the figures contained in the document following detailed research by Steven Thomson, of Scotland's Rural College, together with Andrew Moxey, of Pareto Consulting.

The researchers estimate a total of £53.86 million was paid to Borders farmers and agri-businesses in the region over the year covered by the study. This equates to 10.6 per cent of the Scottish total of £508.79 million.

The payments to 1,052 qualifying Borders recipients (Scottish total 17,850) cover all sectors of agricultural activity. And as the report explains: "Reflecting the larger average sized businesses the largest average payments were in the Borders (£51,201) followed by Tayside (£41,135) and Lothian (£40,260)".

So far as the Borders was concerned £20.4 million worth of subsidies went to the beef sector (570 individual payments), £16.18 million to sheep farming (674), £15.58 million to crop growing activity (530), £760,000 to dairying (13) and £940,000 to other sectors (223).

In addition £5.87 million worth of environment and forestry payments were made to 302 recipients.

The report says: "Future funding arrangements for farm support once the UK is no longer under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remain uncertain. However, data on the level of past funding provided to individual farm businesses can (via various modelling assumptions and caveats) be used to estimate notional sectoral payment ‘envelopes’ to different sectors.

 "£506.9m was allocated to farmers through ‘direct’ support in 2019 – Basic Payment Scheme, Greening, Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme Mainland, Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme Island, Scottish Upland Sheep Support Scheme and including both the Beef Efficiency Scheme and Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme. 

"Using the Standard Output (SO) model for 2019, beef activities were allocated 43.5% of direct support payments, whilst crop and horticulture activities received 24.7%, sheep activities 23.6%, dairy activities 5.3% with the remainder (2.9%) being allocated to grazing or fodder crops without any (June) stocking activity."

Nationally, in 2005, when the last sectoral payments were known, from the £632 million CAP direct support budget the beef sector received 46%, the cereal sector 30%, the sheep sector 18% and the dairy sector 6%.

In 2019 the North East of Scotland received 18.5% (£93.8m) of ‘direct’ payments with 43% allocated from the beef envelope and 41% from the crop envelope. Dumfries and Galloway received 13.5% (£68.2m) of payments with 56% of allocated through the beef envelope, 21% the sheep envelope and 16% the dairy envelope.

The researchers explain: "The analysis is a direct response to evidence requests from the Farmer Led Groups on Climate Change. The main purpose of this research was therefore to provide an estimate of how the current (largely decoupled) funding might be allocated to sectors within Scottish agriculture – in essence an analytical exercise in recoupling support payments to enterprise types on farms and crofts.

"The exercise serves as an indicator of the level of funding that may be required for relative sectoral support continuity under future schemes, if that is a policy objective."

 

Will £30m of Avocet patents fall to the Crown?

by OUR BUSINESS UNIT

For the second time in little more than a year the principal entity in the Avocet Group of businesses is to become the subject of a compulsory dissolution notice by the Registrar of Companies, raising the prospect that £30 million worth of patents and licences could become the property of the Crown.

The notification which will be published in The Gazette, the UK's official public record, on May 10th warns that the 'flagship' of the Avocet fleet will be struck off the companies register not less than two months from now "unless cause is shown to the contrary".

An identical course of action was initiated by Companies House in April 2021, but the notice was subsequently suspended. It states: "Upon the company's dissolution, all property and rights vested in or held in trust by the company are deemed to be bona vacantia, and will belong to the Crown".

The published notice does not specify why the drastic action is being taken. But the Companies House website shows ANC's accounts are long overdue. Financial statements for the period up to December 26th 2019 should have been lodged with the business regulator by December 28th 2020 while an updated confirmation statement was meant to be submitted by November 3rd last year.

According to ANC's last audited accounts (up to December 2018) £29.988 million of shareholders' funds were used to purchase £30 million worth of patents and licences. £20 million of the cash went to Avocet Infinite PLC (now re-named Omega Infinite, and in compulsory liquidation), with the remaining £10 million going to Avocet IP Ltd.

Senior Statutory Auditor Alan Meikle, of RfM Fylde, who audited the 2018 accounts noted in his report "Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and, except to the extent otherwise explicitly stated in our report, we do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon".

A paragraph in those accounts shows that "on November 2nd 2019, post year end, control has passed to Martin Frank Frost, the director".

However, Mr Frost, the former Avocet Group chairman was forced to resign his directorships of multiple businesses after he was declared bankrupt last October by a judge.

The latest company records show the directors of ANC are Dr Bob Jennings and a recently formed company called Therapus Ltd. with Eirlys Lloyd Company Services Ltd listed as company secretary.

Avocet's 600 shareholders who have yet to see a return for their investment in the Group's supposedly revolutionary fuel concept learned last month that the sale of the patents was once more imminent, and dividends would follow to 'approved' investors.

Mr Frost wrote in an email: "On Friday 29th April I travel to Israel for medical treatment. Whilst in Israel I should conclude the sale of the creative genius of Dr. Glyn Short and Dr. ‘Bob’ Jennings. Payments will now commence early May and will be first made on a need basis. In broad terms I expect that a total price of some £400 million will be secured for the Short & Jennings’ (fuel) & Frost concepts (agriculture) intellectual property."

But disgruntled contributors to an Avocet shareholders' online forum subsequently claimed that Mr Frost's status as a bankrupt meant he had no right to sign deals with any party, and that he should not be engaged in managerial business activities.

In a follow up email last week Mr Frost told readers that following another 'incident' he would be unable to depart for Israel until May 12th.

The sale of patents to the Israeli state with involvement of that country's secret service formed part of the evidence at Mr Frost's bankruptcy hearing at Leeds last October. The judge heard that a £6.6 million payment from the deal would allow Avocet's chairman to pay his debts.

But Jonathan Rodger, counsel for bankruptcy petitioners United Kingdom Agricultural Lending Ltd (UKALL) dismissed the claims made by Mr Frost as "fanciful and utterly without substance".

Mr Rodger told the court: "There are no transaction documents, by which I mean documents effecting the sale of $40M of intellectual property to the state of Israel. The idea that such a transaction would not have generated a forest of documents is absurd. There are no minutes of the board of ANC or of a shareholders meeting of ANC approving the disposition of such an enormous amount of ANC’s money to Mr Frost. Obviously for a company to just give $6.1M of its money to a director is an eyebrow raising thing which ought properly to be done with attending formality."