Re: [FRAUD] LEOcoin scam making demonstrably fraudulent claims to con general public
⭐ Merited by xtraelv (1)
Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Learning Enterprises Organisations Limited is LEOcoin in as much as the coin was founded and launched by the same people for the purpose of integrating with the learnearnown MLM structure. To deny otherwise is patently false. So conversation concerning the dire financial state of the LEO company are absolutely relevant to the topic of this thread.
Bernard Landi, an accountant (LANDI ACCOUNTING SOLUTIONS LIMITED) who also serves as board member and sometime shareholder of various LEO-related companies contacted Nicolas Cusack of Parker Andrews Limited, to whom he had previously referred work to in the past.
He, Mr Landi, was 'in discussion with' the creditor LEO Entrepreneurship Ltd (Hong Kong), albeit you should also note that both he and Dan Andersson act as officers for LEO Entrepreneurship (UK) Ltd, with the shareholding changed from themselves to the Hong Kong company where, you should particularly note, that the purported change in beneficial ownership from Mr Landi to the Hong Kong company was filed a little over one month ago but backdated to February 2018.
So, in that there is little doubt that one or both of them is directly connected to the Hong Kong creditor company, you can see why I put the quote marks around the phrase 'in discussion with', because it is merely an extension of their own actions, rather than contact by an actual 'third-party' creditor.
Now, what is important to understand with regards to any argument within the management of this company, or any affiliate company to Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd is this:
All of this is only a matter about a dispute between TWO people, the two shareholders of Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd:
Atif Kamran and Dan Gunnar Bjarne Andersson.
In that Dan Andersson holds the majority shareholding in the company the sole reason there was a supposed fear in the 'connected companies', such as its Hong Kong creditor, LEO Entrepreneurship Ltd (Hong Kong), that the 'connected investors' would be removed from the board of the company Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd, is that a successful legal action taken against it by Atif Kamran could very well result in Dan Andersson losing his majority shareholding rights and, ergo, be subsequently removed from the board and lose control of the company itself.
This 'creditor action' by the Hong Kong company is Dan Andersson attempting to shut everything down before it could be taken from him and to make a creditors demand against the company and have assets/cash paid to his Hong Kong entity, LEO Entrepreneurship Ltd.
This is the same Dan Andersson who, let's not forget, failed to defend himself against claims he was issuing more LEOcoins than the company could possibly fund. So none of this is the behaviour of an upstanding businessman and just another thing to consider when put against his legal woes in Pakistan.
...and on the subject of funding:
Because Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd, now under administration, is the company which bills 'customers' for all these services and, as the administration documents show, not only is there a £2,000,000 write-off due on the balance sheet, the 'management and support functions' it bills for are no longer sufficient an income-stream to fund the company which, both issues being taken into consideration, lead to it being considered insolvent and, as previously explained, is now largely a matter of who can pick what remaining meat off the bones might be left assets/cash-in-bank wise.
Yes I get that you like to claim that I am not presenting a balanced view, but the facts speak for themselves and are not my opinion, they are objectively proven and evidenced.
But the truth is this, if the services which Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd bills for are no longer sufficient to provide for a viable revenue to keep the company solvent, what makes you think any other version of the company, incorporated in any other jurisdiction, could magically turn this operating loss into a profit?
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
As said many times, this thread is about LEOcoin and not about Learning Enterprises Organisations Limited (LEO Ltd) or other third party business. Therefore I consider to remove your last post.
Learning Enterprises Organisations Limited is LEOcoin in as much as the coin was founded and launched by the same people for the purpose of integrating with the learnearnown MLM structure. To deny otherwise is patently false. So conversation concerning the dire financial state of the LEO company are absolutely relevant to the topic of this thread.
1) what legal entity asked for Mr. Cusack to be appointed as Administrator and has paid for this?
2) would that legal entity not be a substantial creditor?
3) would it be relevant who has filed for insolvency and why?
2) would that legal entity not be a substantial creditor?
3) would it be relevant who has filed for insolvency and why?
Bernard Landi, an accountant (LANDI ACCOUNTING SOLUTIONS LIMITED) who also serves as board member and sometime shareholder of various LEO-related companies contacted Nicolas Cusack of Parker Andrews Limited, to whom he had previously referred work to in the past.
He, Mr Landi, was 'in discussion with' the creditor LEO Entrepreneurship Ltd (Hong Kong), albeit you should also note that both he and Dan Andersson act as officers for LEO Entrepreneurship (UK) Ltd, with the shareholding changed from themselves to the Hong Kong company where, you should particularly note, that the purported change in beneficial ownership from Mr Landi to the Hong Kong company was filed a little over one month ago but backdated to February 2018.
So, in that there is little doubt that one or both of them is directly connected to the Hong Kong creditor company, you can see why I put the quote marks around the phrase 'in discussion with', because it is merely an extension of their own actions, rather than contact by an actual 'third-party' creditor.
Quote
Now, what is important to understand with regards to any argument within the management of this company, or any affiliate company to Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd is this:
Quote
All of this is only a matter about a dispute between TWO people, the two shareholders of Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd:
Quote
Atif Kamran and Dan Gunnar Bjarne Andersson.
In that Dan Andersson holds the majority shareholding in the company the sole reason there was a supposed fear in the 'connected companies', such as its Hong Kong creditor, LEO Entrepreneurship Ltd (Hong Kong), that the 'connected investors' would be removed from the board of the company Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd, is that a successful legal action taken against it by Atif Kamran could very well result in Dan Andersson losing his majority shareholding rights and, ergo, be subsequently removed from the board and lose control of the company itself.
This 'creditor action' by the Hong Kong company is Dan Andersson attempting to shut everything down before it could be taken from him and to make a creditors demand against the company and have assets/cash paid to his Hong Kong entity, LEO Entrepreneurship Ltd.
This is the same Dan Andersson who, let's not forget, failed to defend himself against claims he was issuing more LEOcoins than the company could possibly fund. So none of this is the behaviour of an upstanding businessman and just another thing to consider when put against his legal woes in Pakistan.
...and on the subject of funding:
4) as you can read in the report yourself, the company (LEO Ltd.) does provide management and support functions to third parties. These third parties do provide educational and learning products. Why then, do you continue to claim, that LEO Ltd. would do so
Because Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd, now under administration, is the company which bills 'customers' for all these services and, as the administration documents show, not only is there a £2,000,000 write-off due on the balance sheet, the 'management and support functions' it bills for are no longer sufficient an income-stream to fund the company which, both issues being taken into consideration, lead to it being considered insolvent and, as previously explained, is now largely a matter of who can pick what remaining meat off the bones might be left assets/cash-in-bank wise.
Quote
5) as you were so prone to point out that Mr. Atif Kamran had been fired, but fought back at court. Have you noticed in the report that you are quoting, that he - according to the administrator - has to pay back a loan over 328,000 GBP to LEO Ltd.?
And the company also owes Club Med alone nearly three hundred thousand quid, so even if Atif Kamran were to settle that debt it's only going to go towards existing creditors.Quote
And, as a final comment - yes, it is important to keep an eye on LEO activities, but to do it properly and from the right perspective is paramount to arrive at a balanced view. It is my impression, that you utterly fail to do so.
Yes I get that you like to claim that I am not presenting a balanced view, but the facts speak for themselves and are not my opinion, they are objectively proven and evidenced.
But the truth is this, if the services which Learning Enterprises Organisation Ltd bills for are no longer sufficient to provide for a viable revenue to keep the company solvent, what makes you think any other version of the company, incorporated in any other jurisdiction, could magically turn this operating loss into a profit?