Our Contact with the UK Attorney General

"Dear Mr Wright,

I am writing to you in your capacity as my Member of Parliament and also as Attorney General with regard to complex and serious fraud that has been carried out by the former directors of Yellow Page PLC (later renamed to Hibu PLC) and the administrators Deloitte. This is an extremely complex and in-depth case and I do not want to inundate you with the minutiae of the case at this point, but rather to make you aware of the disastrous failings of those government and regulatory bodies who are supposed to protect the public interest.

I am a member of the Hibu Shareholders Group (HSG), which was set up in 2013 whilst Hibu PLC were still actively trading on the London Stock Exchange. The group was formed to investigate how the company was being run, due to the suspicion that it was primarily for the benefit of the debt holders and Board of Directors and their own personal gain rather than that of shareholders and the company as a whole. As was our right under company law, we called an EGM to question the actions of the Board of Directors and furthermore to install our own Directors to gain access to information that was being deliberately held back from shareholders (such as audited accounts).

As it became clear that HSG were heading for a majority in the EGM, our potential directors were sent letters by Hibu's lawyers stating that there would be "serious consequences" for them should they be appointed, and the restructuring compromised. This was followed up by a threat of putting the company into administration should they attempt to take up their positions.

This is exactly what they carried out and the shareholders were met with administrators Deloitte at the EGM, rather than the Directors, whose disastrous management of the company led to 7800 shareholders making a total loss and the wealth within the company transferred to the debt holders and vulture funds for no reason other than greed and personal gain. There was no financial reason whatsoever to put the company into administration.

We are aware that there is a very fine division between sharp practice and outright fraud in business, however, it is our opinion that fraud on a major level had taken place here, including (but not limited to) the transference of over £1 billion out of the reach of shareholders into a complex web of subsidiaries and overseas companies and the trading of an empty shell on the London Stock Exchange with no Directors, no staff, contracts or suppliers.

As a group HSG has done all that it can in view of the very limited funds available to us, including;

• Calling an EGM
• Meeting with the then Business Secretary Dr Vince Cable
• Meeting with Deloitte on several occasions
• Presenting the case to a cross party selection of MP's in Parliament
• Raising a case with the Insolvency Service
• Raising a case with the FCA
• Raising and submitting a case to the Serious Fraud Office

This is in addition to conducting thousands of hours of research to corroborate our hypotheses.

Unfortunately, however, our efforts have been met with what was essentially outright dismissal despite evidence we presented corroborating our strong assertion that fraud was committed. As an example of the ineptitude we have suffered at the hands of these regulatory bodies, we were told by the FCA and the Insolvency service that we should take our complaint about the conduct of the head Deloitte administrator Neville Kahn to the ICAEW for investigation. It was at that time that Neville Kahn was in fact Chairman of the ICAEW. He would, therefore, have been effectively investigating himself!

I trust that this highlights just one of the failings and conflicts of interests we have encountered during our quest for justice. The Serious Fraud Office reluctantly agreed to look at our case after 12 months of communication, and then spent a further 10 months "reviewing" our case before concluding that our case did not meet their criteria for an investigation. I now highlight how our case easily satisfies these, their own, then, criteria:

• Whether the apparent criminality undermines UK PLC commercial or financial interests In general and in the City of London in particular.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this fraud was committed in the UK, by a company trading on the London Stock Exchange.

• Whether the actual or potential loss is high

Actual losses amount to ten figures, and these are not assumed figures. Rather, they are actual figures resulting from the transfer of ownership of the company from shareholders to other parties.

• Whether actual or potential economic harm is significant

To claim that what transpired is not significant is to claim that 7800 people losing the entire value of their investment is of no consequence. Economic harm was also done to pension funds invested in this stock.

• Whether there is a significant public interest element

There is a very significant public interest element here, this was not a speculative investment made by individuals on AIM for a foreign mining company but an investment in a British icon, trading for 50 years and listed on the London Stock Exchange that at one time had a market capitalisation in

excess of £5 billion.

• Whether there is a new species of fraud

This is certainly a new species of fraud insofar as the amount involved and the arrogance of the company and administrators using "restructuring" tactics to transfer ownership of a company away from shareholders knowing that the only way to challenge it is the ability to spend millions of pounds on legal action.

Furthermore, HSG know, without doubt, that the SFO did not fully review the evidence that was presented to them, and it is clear that they were purely paying the group lip service after the tenacity of its members and directors forced a review of the case. However, despite the submission of a 70-page document outlining in detail not just the breaches of the SFO's own criteria but those of the 2006 Fraud Act including fraud by false representation & fraud by failing to disclose information, among others, it was to no avail.

The group intends to re-submit our case to the SFO in early September now that the new Director, Lisa Osofsky, has been appointed. We are particularly encouraged by the fact that she is highly unlikely to be ensconced in the "old boys network" as her predecessor was (who has now taken up comfortable employment at a legal firm that has strong links to the Board of Directors whose actions were responsible for our group's losses) and we are heartened by her stance on investigations.

"I have been very international, and I have been trained as an investigator. I know where to look and don't want to leave stones unturned if I can help it. I am thorough, I am uncompromising, in terms of looking at every stone - I want it turned, every possibility, before I walk into a courtroom, tough and

fair."

As you will see from the information I have provided above Mr Wright, fraud has clearly been committed on a huge scale, However, this is not just our opinion and I would not want your view of HSG to be just a collection of disgruntled shareholders angry at their own poor investment decisions.

We have been severely defrauded on a monumental scale, which has resulted in life changing losses or many of the group's members. This view is shared by lawyers, forensic accountants, independent insolvency practitioners and a QC. Moreover, in 6 years of research, no information has come to our attention that shows that any of these transactions were transparent and reported to the

shareholders or the London Stock Exchange.

Again, we would like to re-iterate that these assumptions are not just based on this group's views, but also on that of our past lawyers Covington & Burling, and also our current lawyers Quinn Emmanuel, including Robert Amaee, who, as you are no doubt aware was the Head of Bribery and Anti-Corruption at the SFO for a number of years and also Head of Proceeds of Crime and represented the SFO on the Attorney General's working Group in respect of The Bribery Act.

This has turned my life upside down Mr Wright. It was not made any easier by the fact that I was undergoing cancer treatment when the company defrauded us, and it is only because of a group of hard working and tenacious individuals that I have any hope left. The group have done everything possible with the extremely limited funds that they have, but it seems that justice cannot be served unless the aggrieved party has huge sums in reserve. We cannot afford to take the expensive legal action required to get this to court as this has been estimated to cost between four and twelve million pounds. We therefore have to rely on those very organisations and bodies that are there to protect us to do their job, but it seems they are unable or unwilling to do so despite the huge amount of compelling evidence to which we have made them privy.

I would welcome your views on this and would also like you personally to oversee our next submission to the Serious Fraud Office and our endeavour to have this case investigated correctly. By correctly, I mean in full accordance with the law and not in such a way as to be steered and/or hindered according to the subjective view of any individual or group of individuals.

I look forward to hearing from you."

A very well written and detailed communication from our member  to the Attorney General Jeremy Wright MP QC, let's see his response.