Further reasons to suspect fraud. Questions that Mike Davies refuses to answer…

Here is the list of questions that Mike Davies, the Managing Director of Connaught Asset Management, has refused to answer. Naturally investors and IFAs can draw our own inferences over the
conduct of Connaught in the light of such refusal.

1. Did Connaught Asset Management (or any entity employing Connaught officers or employees) receive any fees directly or indirectly from Tiuta PLC / Tiuta International that were not disclosed in the original Investment Memorandum ?

2. What was your involvement at Tiuta?

3. Has BDO been instructed to look for fraudulent activity at Tiuta?

4. Has anyone at Connaught ever been aware or suspected fraudulent activity at Tiuta?

5. Has anyone at Connaught ever spoken to one or more IFA’s where they have specifically alleged fraudulent activity at Tiuta?

6. Did Rawlinson & Hunter ever refuse to sign off accounts in respect of Tiuta International or Tiuta PLC, and if so, were Connaught aware of this and what steps did Connaught take to investigate the
reasons for R&H’s refusal to sign-off Tiuta’s accounts?

7. You mentioned in a conversation last week that Tiuta had on occasion ‘not stuck to the rules of the scheme’ – your exact words. Can you please explain what you meant by this phrase and confirm to us that any such deviation was not fraudulent?

8. Also, when did you become aware of these deviations and what remedial steps did you take to rectify them and / or notify investors of such deviations to allow them to determine whether or not the
investment was as originally described?

9. In an email to an IFA you were asked about fraudulent activity and you advised that you had ‘no reason to believe there had been any fraudulent activity particularly as alternative security had been
provided to the Fund’ – your exact phrase. Can you please explain this?

10. Did Tiuta decide to discharge security without reference to Connaught?

11. Were internal procedures followed or not?

12. Were valuations carried out at the time?

13. Have they subsequently been carried out?

14. Was sufficient legal due diligence carried out by Connaught?

15. If nothing improper occurred, why were Connaught not consulted at the time ?

15. Surely it is for Connaught to decide what security they receive?

We ask :

Why won’t Mike Davies answer these qestions? Aren’t investors entitled to know what has happened to their money?

Come on Mike, you need to face the music !

We invite Connaught Administration to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities as General Partner. It continues to administer the Fund on behalf of investors and to refuse to answer investor questions
is in our opinion a breach of its duties as General Partner. Please answer the questions!

The FSA regulated Operator has a responsibility to respond to complaints. The “Operator” is Blue Gate Capital. It has a duty under the DISP rules of the FSA to respond to any expressions of
dissatisfaction from investors.

Click here for a letter of complaint to Blue Gate Capital.

It is quite wrong that the General Partner is controlled by Connaught Asset Management which appears to be insolvent. Both companies should be wound up.

The Connaught Action Group would like limited partners to write letters before action to the General Partner claiming negligence and breach of contract in failing to provide audited accounts of the Fund. If GP does not step down in favour of a GP nominated by investors in the letter before action, investors should request an orderly wind down of the partnership under the control of a IP who will work for the creditors at the meeting on 13 August.

Click here for a draft letter before action.