Complaint Review: Alton Atkinson Petersfield Holdings LLC - Ajax Ontario

I had filed the report on ALTON ATKINSON and PETERSFIELD HOLDINGS as an emotional response to the events preceding its posting to this forum.  There are several underlying factors that have since come to light and as the customer of ALTON ATKINSON and PETERSFIELD HOLDINGS it is now working towards meaningful discussion for final resolutions of the disagreements between companys and I choose to withdraw my complaint and apologize to ALTON ATKINSON and PETERSFIELD HOLDINGS for any statements that may or may not be accurate.

  It is so easy to have your name dragged through the mud over the internet. You can have the good name of your firm attacked by nameless, faceless, angry individuals all within a moment by the use of the internet. So let me now take the next hour or so to rebut the defaming things the individual has said about myself and my firm.

   First of all, I was introduced to David Cullen by a mutual friend of ours at the time a few years ago. He had called me since that introduction on several items, but nothing ever came of those calls. Over that period of time he had introduced me to a Roderick Kagy from the firm One World Foundation that he was now working for. Roderick and I had spoken several times on various potential transactions, but nothing ever came of those conversations either.

 Which brings us to the transaction in question.  

  David is correct, I did send him a newsletter introducing a new procedure for project funding that an associate and I had prepared in order to remove some of the risk associated with this business. Risks that I was fully aware off: being a victim of fraud ourselves. David had called me for more information about the contents of the newsletter, and we discussed how these  procedures could be beneficial to One World Foundation. On June 6, 2012, David sent me a copy of an Investor Presentation (project summary) for One World Foundation in order for  my associate and I to review  to see if their project fits the criteria of what we were looking to fund. A full CIS package followed on June 7, 2012.

During one of our phone calls David had mentioned that his firm required funding in the area of $10,000,000 USD. However, after reviewing the documents he had sent to me, we were only able to provided them with a Letter of Intent in the amount of $8,250,000 USD. With the security being a SBLC in the amount of $25,000,000 USD. The Letter of Intent was signed and returned on June 9th.

This is what happened next.

   David mentioned in his statement that I had told him that he could not use his escrow agent. That is not true!!!!! On May 25th, David had sent me the name of his attorney in NYC that he wanted to use.

My reply to his request was that I would provide his lawyer's name to the escrow lawyer (how is also in NYC), and if he was aware of his lawyer, then the escrow lawyer would accept an undertaking (a letter) from his lawyer that the funds were indeed in escrow for this transaction, and that  the release points of the escrows were the same for both agreements, and we would then proceed with the transaction. I understand the comfort level of a client wishing to use their own attorney, because I have been a victim of several shady lawyers in the past myself. The escrow lawyer replied to me, stating that he is not aware of this lawyer. I informed David of this, and asked him to contact the escrow lawyer in NYC himself in order to get his own level of comfort prior to moving forward with the transaction. He called the escrow lawyer directly.

Conducted his due diligence, and determined that he was  comfortable enough to move forward with the transaction. He was so comfortable that he asked me if he could use the escrow lawyer for their own transaction outside of business that he was conducting with my firm. To which I agreed.

  After the LOI was signed, I sent a Contract outlying the terms and conditions under which the instrument would be delivered via a swift MT 760. On June 13th the signed Contract was returned. The escrow agent in NYC prepared the escrow agreement, and that was sent to OWF on June 14th.

One World Foundation's CEO Roderick Kagy, signed and returned the escrow agreement on June 21st. However, no funds were ever deposited into escrow in order for me to proceed with this transaction. So David stating that my firm had delayed this transaction since May is another lie.

   Over the summer David, and or Roderick called me to discuss several different transactions. I provided them with another contract of June 28th, after they had requested a $50,000,000 USD BG, but this contract was never signed or returned. Like the first on, no funds was ever placed in escrow. Again, how can I be held responsible for delaying the funding of their project since May?

   In late September, I was again approached by One World Foundation for another instrument. This time a $30,000,000 USD SBLC. I informed them that this instrument would required a deposit of $175,000 USD into escrow. I offered a contract on September 25th. It was not returned signed until October 8th. The escrow agreement was prepared on October 8th, and sent to the One World Foundation (OWF). It was signed and returned on October 16th. The $175,000 was deposited into the escrow account also on October 16th. Please note that it is now mid-October, and this was the first that funds were deposited into escrow. However according to David, I had delayed his project since May!

   I started the process of arranging to have the instrument prepared and delivered. During this process, the issuer of the instrument insisted that a portion of the funds in escrow would have to be released to them prior to the delivery and confirmation of the instrument. To this I refused. I canceled the transaction, and informed One World Foundation. At the same time informed David and Roderick that I have access to another group in Hong Kong that might be able to provide the instrument. They agreed, and I then started the process of arranging to have that instrument delivered. This occurred on October 22nd.

    The transaction in question had several movingpoints that my associate and I believed would be beneficial to our clients. The following is the process. (1) A pre-advise swift MT 199/999/or Bank Letter had to be sent to the receiving party from the issuing bank, stating that they were RWA to send out a SBLC via MT 760. Upon receipt of that swift MT 199/999/ or Bank Letter, the receiving party would then  provide the banking details in which the transaction would be conducted (2) Another MT199/999 would be sent from the issuing bank to the receiving bank, quoting the transaction number that had been provided by the receiving entity, stating that they were ready, willing and able to send a  MT 760 in the amount of $30,000,000 for the benefit of their client, asking if they were aware of the transaction, and if they was ready to accept the instrument. (3) The receiving bank would then reply with a MT 199/999 to the issuing bank bank stating that they were aware of the transaction, and that they were ready, willing and able to accept the MT 760 on behalf of their client, in addition they would provide a payment guarantee in the amount of the pre-arranged LTV against the instrument upon receipt of the MT 760 at their bank. (4) The issuing bank upon receipt of this MT 199/999, would send the MT 760.  

  However, since that was a new process, it was somewhat difficult to get the new issuing bank in Hong Kong to do this in a hurry. Since I was not prepared to release any funds to them until the MT 760 was sent and received. Their concern was that what happens if they send the MT 199/999 and the receiving bank does not reply. Anyone associated with this  business is aware of just howdifficult it is to get a real provider to do anything without payment.
However, they had agreed to move forward. But since they were doing me a favour, I was not in a  position to push them to do it in a hurry. So it took longer than expected. However, the first MT 199 was sent and received at the receiving bank.

   While we were waiting for this transaction. David send me another file. This file required the sending of a $25,000,000 USD SBLC to a lender in Singapore, via an account at the Development Bank of Singapore. On October 27th, a contract was sent to OWF.

    This transaction called for a Proof of Funds in the form of a Tear Sheet from the issuing bank on behalf of OWF in the amount of $25,000,000 USD. The contract called for a fee of $150,000 for the Tear Sheet from this top graded investment bank. After the tear sheet has been delivered and confirmed, the SBLC would be sent. The SBLC required $350,000 to be deposited into escrow.

   Let me point now to another point that David made in hisstatement. He stated that I would not allow another attorney to hold the escrow funds. However, the funds for this transaction were held in an escrow account, by an escrow attorney in Oregon that I did not know. I had requested that this attorney provided the escrow attorney in NYC with a letter stating that he had the funds in escrow, and that the release points in his escrow agreement mirrored those in our escrow agreement. Once these conditions were met, I moved forward with the transaction. David again lied.

   Back to the transaction. OWF wanted me to deliver the Tear Sheet, have it confirmed, and not pay for it until the SBLC was sent via MT 760 and confirmed at the DBS.  I was able to get my provider to agree to this on the conditions that the SBLC would be ordered with 72 hours of the confirmation of the Tear Sheet, and on my reputation of conducting good business with them in the past.

   The Tear Sheet was delivered to the escrow agent on Nov. 7th and was confirmed the following day with the issuing bank, with David and the escrow agent via a telephone call. Upon confirmation of the Tear Sheet, OWF then issued copies of it to the escrow agent in Oregon; A lender in the UK; The account holder in Singapore, and to their investor in California. The 72 hour time frame came an went without the SBLC being ordered. My provider started to become concerned about the likelihood of being paid forthe issuance of the Tear Sheet. So they requested a change in the agreement. If OWL wanted to have the SBLC sent when they were ready to order it, they would have to release $65,000 to the provider's attorney. Not to my firm. I discussed this with with David and Roderick.

During the same period of time, David and Roderick had a two hour conference call with my associate in London. during this conference call he outlined the various risk associated with these types of transaction. Since he and I had been victims in the past, we believed we were in a position to provide OWF with our experience. However, OWF choose to ignore our warnings, and decided to move forward with the transaction. These warnings were not due to the fact that we had any concerns that the provider would not complete the transaction. They were due to our concern that they were about to release funds to have an instrument sent to a lender that they were not fully aware of. They were relative novices in this business, so did not have the experience. They had requested a tear sheet confirmation as opposed to a swift. Please remember this for later in this rebuttal (Which later Roderick informed me that his lender did not need the Tear Sheet)

     So while they were sending the Tear Sheet to their various parties around the world. The other transaction was still moving slowly forward. A four part transaction, that would only provide payment to the provider once all the parts were completed, was not high on the provider's to do list. So OWF decided to cancel the transaction. However, their motivation for canceling the transaction was to provided themselves with a better opportunity with the investor of the transaction in question. If they were to bring their own funds to the table, thereby requiring less of the investor's capital to fund the delivery of the SBLC, then they would be entitled to a better financial payout upon the completion of the transaction. So they decided to pay the $65,000 themselves. This is not my opinion. (This information was provided by Roderick directly to me) OWF sent a release letter to the escrow agent in NYC, authorizing him to release funds directly to the providers lawyer. While at the same time renegotiated the payout contract with their investor. Let me be totally clear here - (Not one single penny came to me, or to my firm, or anyone associated with me or to my firm) This occurred on November13th.

    The funds were released on November 14th. The SBLC was then ordered for delivery to the account that OWF had provided at the Development Bank of Singapore. (DBS)

   David, in his statement mentioned that I had promised to send a MT 999 to the account at DBS, and that I later reneged on that promise. This is another lie. I asked you to remember that a Tear Sheet POF confirmation was requested, not a swift.

    I had two discussions with OWF in regard to a MT 999. The first on November 6th, when I forwarded them a Disclosure Statement for them to fully review, sign and return to me. The following is clause number 4 of that Disclosure Statement:  
 
 4. Intermediary (PF Holdings) strongly recommends Client authorize Intermediary to send a Swift MT999 to prove transmission. Client understands and agrees that sending a MT999 will result in an additional fee to Client. Intermediary has advised Client that sending the MT999 will further secure Clients monetizing transaction and the recipient bank will respond that it is ready, willing, and able to accept the SBLC.

    They signed and returned the statement the same day, without requesting a MT 999.

    The other time that the MT 999 came up was on or around November 19th. The SBLC had been ordered, and we were awaiting the delivery receipt. I had spoken to the provider early that day, and he had stated that there might be the need for a MT 999 to be sent to DBS if a Relationship Management Agreement (RMA) did not exist between the two banks. I later passed that information onto Roderick during a telephone call that we had later that same day. Those are the only two conversations that I ever had with OWF regarding a MT 999. The request for a MT 999 was not part of our contract, or a part of any other agreement that ever existed between our two firms. At no time, or in any form of communication, did OWF ever request a MT 999 to be sent. Furthermore, the only means by which I can be aware of what OWF bank requires, is by OWF informing me. They told me they required a Tear Sheet, and it was provided.  Again David's statement is a lie.

   The MT 760 was delivered to DBS on November 21st. OWF; the account holder in Singapore; OWL's  lender in the UK; the escrow lawyer in Oregon and the investor in California all acknowledged take the MT 760 was indeed delivered to the DBS in Singapore . However, this where the silliness begins.

    First, OWF sent me a copy of a letter that they want placed on the issuing banks' letterhead, along with a hard copy of instrument send via fax not to DBS in Singapore, but to a issuing banks' branch in Singapore. This letter asked the issuing banks' branch in Singapore to confirm the MT 760 that has been sent to DBS Singapore. This was not part of the contract, and the issuing bank refused. I offered to have the issuing banker call OWF banker in Singapore to discuss the MT 760 with their banker directly. They refused. I offered to have their banker call the issuing bank's banker directly. OWF again refused. I offered to have the issuing bank send another MT 999. OWF refused. I offered to have a version of the the letter that the issuing bank could send, along with the hard copy faxed to the issuing banks' branch in Singapore. 

They again refused. While this was going on DBS replied via MT 199 to the MT 760 that was sent to them, stating that they are in receipt of theMT 760, that the message is clear and accurate and has been forward to the corespondent department and that the account manager will be notified and the client will be notified within 3-7 days. After I forwarded this to OWF, they requested something else.

    They now wanted an e-mail to be sent directly from the issuing bank with the following attachments: The Hard Copy; a copy of the MT 760 that was sent; a copy of the MT 011; a copy of the message that was sent back from DBS to the issuing bank. They wanted these copies signed and stamp by a banker at the issuing bank. I again agreed. I offered to have this e-mail sent directly from the banker at the issuing bank to the lawyer in Oregon. OWF refused. I offered to have to sent directly to their banker at DBS.

They again refused. I offered to have it sent to the lender in the UK. Again they refused. Finally, they agreed to having it sent to the escrow attorney in NYC. However, since a hard copy delivery of a $25,000,000 USD SBLC, was not part of the original agreement, and with the provider getting even more concerned about the actions of this client, they insisted on getting a deposit of $85,000 for the delivery of the Hard Copy. This was completed on Nov. 28th.

    All along this process I am pointing out the warning signs to OWF. The need for a Tear Sheet, instead of a swift. The insisting on having the letter and hard copy send to the branch of the issuing bank in Singapore, instead of confirmation of the MT 760 via swift . The need to have the e-mail not sent directly to the account holder banker in Singapore, but to a escrow lawyer in NYC. The need for a Hard Copy when they have an instrument in their account in Singapore.

They did not listen to me. They sent a letter to the escrow attorney in NYC authorizing the release of the $85,000 that was sent directly to the provider's lawyer. while at the same time making a better deal for themselves with their investor. (Again - let me be clear, I nor my firm did not receive asingle penny of these funds. No one associated with myself or my firm did ever receive a single penny of these funds) Another lie by David.

    Prior to the e-mail being sent, I had exhausted all my good will with my provider in regards to this deal. I had asked them to deliver a Tear Sheet in the amount of $25,000,000 on behalf of my client OWF, and they had. I had asked them to provide a MT 760 SBLC in the amount of $25,000,000 on behalf of my client OWF, and they had. Now I am asking them to do something else. They wanted to be assured that once they had performed this request, that this transaction would be completed. That OWF, the lawyer in Oregon; the investor in California and the lender in the UK would be satisfied. That they would have the tools that they require to have a successful transaction. I requested that all parties to this transaction sign an agreement stating that these items were exactly  what was required. This agreement was signed by all parties on Dec 3rd.

For further confirmation, I had a conference call with the account holder in Singapore along with David. To ensure that we were all on the same page, and that by providing the documents that they had requested would ensure a successful transaction for OWF. Again this was confirmed. However, on Dec. 6th the requested documents were amended by the lender in the UK to not include the hard copy, because it was not required. This is after he, and the account holder in Singapore had insisted on getting the hard copy, and after OWF had released $85,000 to secure it. On Dec 7th, the agreement was finalized, and the e-mail copies was received by the escrow lawyer
in NYC on Dec 14th. 

  On Dec. 17th, the escrow lawyer in NYC received an e-mail from the lender in the UK outlying the various reasons why the documents that he had requested and received on the 14th, would not be enough for a successful transaction (I am using this phase, because it is the one that they had used) And again insisting that the original letter and hard copy (yes, hard copy) be sent to the branch of the issuing bank in Singapore. At that point, there was nothing else I could do for OWF in regards to this transaction. Since then I have offered to help OWF with their project funding, but due to this transaction, only if funds are held in escrow with the escrow lawyer in NYC, since they are very familiar with this escrow lawyer. They should not have any concerns with this request. They have not taken me up on this offer. OWF has not paid me for the services that have been provided, and has no intention to do. So how is the "Con Man" The firm that provides the services that he was commission to to provide. Or the firm that does not paid for those services when they are provided, and keep changing the terms and conditions under which they will pay.

   What have I not provided to OWF in this transaction? However, Mr. Cullen after ignoring all my warnings, and those of my associate. Had chosen to turned a blind eye to all the red flags that had occurred with his chosen lender in this transaction. Has the nerves to call me a 'Con Man" and to attempt to damage my good name, and that of my firm. Well, he is the first, and I am sure he will be the last to try to to do so. With no success. You judge for yourself. The truth will always set you free, and I never have an issue with the truth.