Latest Information
aaa Reply to Linns Lawyer
aa SUNDAY MAIL TONY HETHERINGTON
Aberdeen Global
ALEXANDER ROTHKO
Allied International
Andrew Linn's Fraudulent Companies
Andrew Linn Charterhouse 12 per annum
ANDREW LINN EXPOSED BY UK PRESS
Andrew Linn in Criminal Court
ARROW INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED
Arte y Naturaleza
A ANDREW LINN BANNED
A PUBLIC WARNINGS
A WARNING
Banco de España
Banx
Barclays Bank
Baring Ireland
Blacktower Financial Management Int Ltd
Blevins Franks
Brewin and Dolphin
Brite prey on Brits HAMILTONS
BRITISH EMBASSY
Brooks Macdonald Asset Management
Bulgarian Embassy
Case Histories
CASHMAN CONTINUES FIGHT FOR JUSTICE
Castle in the Sun
Caution
Charterhouse 12 percent plus
Churchills Investments
Close International
CNMV
CNMV Complaint
Corruption Real Estate
Costa Del SCAM
Court Action
CTCU Property Fund Ltd. in compulsory liquidation
CURRENT REGULATIONS
David Vance
Debt Collection Agency
Donald Nott
Equity Release in Spain
Equity Warnings
Estepona Golf
False Adverts
Fidecs
Financial Management Direct
First Class Investments
Forsyth
FSA Advice Equity Release
FSA UK
Fund Insurance Management Corporation
Gibraltar
Gibraltar FSC
Gibraltar FSC - 2
Governor of Gibraltar
Guardian Trust Company
Guernsey FSC
Hamiltons Financial Services SL
Hansards MISS SELLING
Henry Woods
Henry Woods Failed Investments
INLAND REVENUE WARNING
Invesco
Investment Program Management Inc
Ireland FS
Isle of Man FS
Jersey FS
John Doust
John Findlater OBE
Kevin Neal International
Kevin White
Knights Insurance
KSi Costa Consulting Group
Labrow Gibraltar
Landesbanki
Landesbanki in Crisis!
Land Grab
Langtons Guide
LATEST INFORMATION
Law Could Save Homes
Leonard Berney - John Findlater OBE
Leonard Berney
Letters to the Action Group
Luxembourg FS
Mail on Sunday
Misleading Adverts
Money Penny Financial Management SL
Mutual Benefits (Viatical)
MUTUAL BENEFITS LASTES
Names of Unlicenced Advisers
Names of Unlicenced Advisors
Need an Advisor
NORMAN EDWIN STEELE
Offshore Money Managers
Offshore Protection
Offshore World SL
OFTA
Orange Finance
Paul Prew Smith
Pension and Investment Shop
Perils of Equity Release Schemes
Premier Life Henry Woods
Premier Low Risk Fund
Press Articles
Property RIP OFF
Protection
PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION
Remington Growth Fund Andrew Linn
Retiring in Spain
RIP OFF COMMISSIONS
Rock Financial Services
Rothschilds
Savignon Financial Services
Scandals
Scottish Widows
Sensible Options
Sheperds and MBC
Sheperds and MBC latest
Spanish Financial Services
Spanish Regulations
Spanish Stamp Fraud
Stamp Scam
Unlicenced Companies
Unlicenced Financial Advisors
Westhill Investments
Who Are We
Your Future Financial Services SL
Andrew Linn Remington Growth Fund

Paul Prew Smith

 List of COURT DOCUMENTS 
Paul Prew-Smith - UK court decision
New Topic    Add Reply
 


Subject: Paul Prew-Smith - UK court decision

Mr. Paul Prew-Smith has been involved in promoting HYIP schemes for several years. He worked with Trevor Prider (see Black List) when Prider was in California operating as Trade Direct.

A recent court decision described an earlier investment program promoted by Mr. Prew-Smith. Mr. Prew-Smith was involved in a real estate scheme in the 1980s and early 1990s in which elderly homeowners were encouraged to borrow against the equity in their homes, and invest the proceeds in certain fixed income securities. This was called a Home Income Plan. The target market was elderly property owners who had built up substantial equity in their homes over the years.

His firm, Fisher Prew-Smith (“FPS”), worked in conjunction with the West Bromwich Building Society (“WBBS”), which granted the loans secured by mortgages against the elderly homeowners’ properties.

The plan would work in a time of rapidly increasing property values, but was risky at a time of stable or even moderately increasing values. Unfortunately, during this time property values actually fell. The elderly clients ended up losing significant amounts of money under the plan.

On December 1993, Mr. Prew-Smith was disqualified from acting as a director of companies for seven (7) years by order of the High Court.

Questions arose about FPS and the representations it had made to the elderly clients. A number of the homeowners challenged FPS and WBBS in court.

After hearing evidence, the Court stated:

It was the uncontroverted evidence of each of the Individual Claimants that, in the course of their initial meetings with FPS' sales representatives, they received positive assurances such as that the Schemes were "completely safe", "a sure-fire winner", "would make them financially secure for the rest of their lives" and that there was no chance that they would lose their homes. Each of them gave evidence that they placed reliance on these assurances in entering into Home Income Plans. WBBS did not answer this evidence.


Notwithstanding these representations, the elderly clients lost money in the end. The Financial Intermediaries Managers Brokers Regulatory Association (“FIMBRA”), an organization similar to today’s FSA, also investigated the matter.

The Court described the outcome of the FIMBRA proceeding:

As already noted, on 21st March, 1991 FIMBRA's disciplinary committee found proved ten of the twelve charges brought against FPS for breaches of its Rules, including a charge that it "failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that clients had understood the extent to which they would be exposed to risk or further liability by entering into retirement income schemes", although they found a charge of failure "to provide to clients 'best advice'" not to have been proved. The disciplinary committee ordered that FPS distribute on a pro rata basis, to all its clients whose investments were transferred to the Ruben Walter Retirement and Growth Account, the sum of £335,809 and that FPS pay a fine of £20,000 in respect of the charge of failing to warn of risks and two further charges found proved namely failure to comply with Rule 2.1.3 "in that persons employed by the member were allowed to conduct investment business without first being registered as registered individuals of the member;" and failure to comply with Rule 6.1.4 namely "to provide warnings on advertising material in the form prescribed by this Rule .......". Although FPS had the right to appeal against these findings and the order it did not do so.


The Court held that FPS violated its duty to the elderly clients by making negligent misrepresentations and using undue influence.


Source:

Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society, et al.,
High Court of Justice (Chancery Div.), Case No. WL 42/98 (decision of Mr. Justice Evans-Lombe filed Jan. 15, 1999).



Edited by: Diligizer at: 9/11/02 10:09:16 pm

© COSTA DEL SOL ACTION GROUP
Against Unlicenced Financial Advisers & Product Providers that support them.