Complaint Review: Legacy Education Alliance Inc - Lee County Flordia

My partner Mr. Norman Yau and my friend Wendy Lau and his partner Victor h*o and I attended 3-day course on 25, 25 and 27 Oct arranged by Legacy HK. In the late afternoon on the last day of the course, namely 27 Oct.

We were induced to pay for this extremely expensive mentorships programme to be arranged and provided by Legacy UK. Nomran and I as a pair paid a total HK$207,050 and Wendy and Victor as pair paid pay a total HK$252,500.

This expensive emntorship progamme was supposed to a 3-day intensive training for property investment in UK and the training as we were told would be taken place in London or other big cities that we would be advised in due course and there was a mentors list provided to us for selecting the mentor with different  specialities and experiences for matching with the property investment that we might prefer.

On 28 Oct, it was Monday, 4 creditors filed a bankruptcy petition against Legacy UK where an Order for Administration was asked for. As Legacy UK was a subsidiary of Legacy US, Legacy US in its latest Quarterly Report was obliged to disclose this piece of litigation to the public; Legacy US at the same time also made it clear it would contest the order sought by the creditors.

As a result of the petiton and the administration order granted by teh Court, Legacy UK was sold to a third party. The agreed services under the mentorship programme that we paid for could be provided to us. We together with other classmates (at least over 40 persons) all asked for refund and Legacy US and HK refuse on the basis that   

(1) They have not breached the agreement entered into us as they could moblize its North America mentors for replacing the UK mentors for teaching us how to invest in UK. In orther words, Legacy US says it would replace the physics teacher by a physical education teacher for teaching us the newton principle. And they insisted that we could not treate such a replacement as breach because there will be a teacher provided to us.   

(2)  Lauren Santy of Legacy US in the reply to our claim for refund that Legacy US at all the material times did not have any knowledge of the creditors' claim at all. In oterh words, both Legacy US and HK did konow Legacy UK is going to falling down soon and the agreed services under the mentorship programme could be provided in the manner promised to us.  

The critcal question here is when Legacy HK and US knew about the creditors' claim, particularly the application of bankruptcy petition. Was it before 27 Oct when were induced to pay for the super expensive mentorship programme.   I believe it is quiet clear that Lauren Santy was not wise in making such an irresponsive bold statement, as I am very sure that Legacy US and HK must know this piece of litigation long before the creditors filed their bankruptcy petition on 28 Oct.  

As a barrister practising law for over 20 years in HK, I fullly know that the legal system in UK which is similar to that in HK prescribes steps for the creditors to fulfill before filing the petition. At the very least issuing a 28-day Statutory Demand for the debtor, i.e. Legacy UK to satisfy.    Legacy US and HK as such ought to possess with this piece of vital information and they deliberately selected not disclosing the same to the class during the 3-day course and continued to ask all the classmates to joint and pay for the mentorship progamme alledgely to be provided by Legacy UK.   The acts plainly consist of the criminal elements of fraud, material non-disclousre and false representation.

Last, Legacy US deliberately selcted not treating the classmates equally by fraudently or unfairly perferred some of the classmates over the others. Legacy US agreed to refund to some of the classmates but NOT everyone caliming for refund even though each and every classmates attended the same 3-day course and was induced to pay and infact did pay for the mentorship programme on 27 Oct.