In this episode, we examine Halcyon Retreat, a French luxury resort investment centred on Château de la Cazine. Marketed with unregulated loan notes, the project has left serious concerns for loan note holders.

We break down:

• The complex network of UK and French companies linked to the scheme
• Insolvent HR Note SPV companies and creditor petitions
• Public complaints of missed payments and broken promises
• The roles of Robin Barrasford and Alan Bird in related ventures
• Why the security trustee arrangement lacks independence
• Details of a major Europol police operation at Château de la Cazine in March 2025

For loan note holders, the message is clear: understand the risks, scrutinise the structures, and act early to protect your position.

Contact Insolvency & Law’s investigations team at [email protected]
for more information.

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to the Halcyon Retreat related companies, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only. Therefore, it must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by the Halcyon Retreat related companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks. The original loan note holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability.

In today’s digital economy, trust often rests on online reviews. But what happens when those reviews aren’t real? Fake reviews, whether overly glowing or maliciously negative, are not harmless. They can mislead consumers, distort reputations, and protect the interests of those who don’t want scrutiny.

In this episode, we explore:

• How fake reviews distort consumer trust and damage genuine businesses
• The warning signs that help you spot fake reviews online
• Why Insolvency & Law has been targeted with false reviews
• How unregulated introducers, trustees, and connected parties benefit from misinformation
• The steps Insolvency & Law is taking, including legal action, to protect its reputation and maintain transparency

Fake reviews are more than an annoyance, they are part of a wider strategy to deter scrutiny and mislead the public. But we will not be silenced.

If you’re concerned about a loan note, mini-bond, or debt recovery issue, contact us confidentially at [email protected].

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to companies mentioned therein, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only. Therefore, it must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original loan note holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability.

Every few months, another loan note scheme unravels. Investors lose savings. Trustees and administrators get paid. Then the cycle restarts under a new brand.

In this episode, we break down the pattern step by step:

• How unregulated introducers target retirees and pension holders
• Why glossy brochures and “asset-backed” claims create false confidence
• The role of trustees like Castle Trust and why they often fail to act
• Case studies: High Street Group, The 79th Group, Ashbrookes, Clean Food Growing, and William Jackson–linked schemes
• Why time is against you if your redemption is overdue

This is not bad luck. It’s a repeated formula. And unless loan note holders act, it will continue.

For more information, contact Insolvency & Law’s investigations team at [email protected].

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to companies mentioned therein, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only. Therefore, it must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original loan note holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability.

When companies collapse, creditors rely on collective action to protect their interests. But in the case of the 79th Group, Kroll Advisory is blocking Insolvency & Law from acting on behalf of loan note holders through valid assignments.

In this episode, we unpack:

Why creditor assignments matter for influence and accountability

Kroll Advisory’s reliance on “no transfer” clauses to shut out representation

The legal flaws in this interpretation under English law

What loan note holders stand to lose if collective action is blocked

The sharp contrast between Kroll’s closed approach and Grant Thornton’s more open stance

The insolvency process should empower creditors, not shield administrators from scrutiny. If loan note holders cannot act collectively, they risk losing their strongest tool at the very moment it is needed most.

 If your loan note redemptions are overdue, contact Insolvency & Law’s investigations team at [email protected].

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to The 79th Group, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only. Therefore, it must not be relied upon as professional advice.
Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by The 79th Group companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original loan note holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability. 

In this episode, we examine the fragile security arrangements behind William (Billy) Jackson’s loan note companies, and why loan note holders should be concerned.

We cover:

• The collapse of Castle Trust & Management Services and its track record in failed schemes
• The rise of Alpha Trustee Services and its key figures, including connections to past loan note collapses
• The gap between Alpha’s marketing promises and what appears in Companies House filings
• Case studies like WH2022 Ltd and Ashbrookes Group that highlight narrow asset coverage, vague enforcement provisions, and little visible action
• Why a trustee’s willingness to act matters as much as the assets themselves

This isn’t just about legal paperwork, it’s about whether the final safeguard in unregulated investments is strong enough to protect you when it counts.

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to William Jackson related companies, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only and must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by William Jackson related companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original Loan Note Holders are fully insulated from legal expense and liability.

In this episode, we unpack one of the most troubling questions in the 79th Group administration saga: how did anonymous websites like Safe or Scam and Bond Review obtain the personal contact details of loan note holders?

We explore:

• Why Safe or Scam’s lack of registration, transparency, and accountability matters
• Reports from loan note holders who were contacted without consent
• The role of Crowell & Moring LLP, Kroll Advisory, and others in the administration process
• How UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 set strict rules on handling personal information
• What steps you can take if you’ve been contacted unlawfully

This is not just a story about data, it’s about influence, control, and transparency in high-stakes insolvency cases.

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to The 79th Group, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only. Therefore, it must not be relied upon as professional advice.
Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by The 79th Group companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original loan note holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability.

In this episode, we take you inside the troubled world of Halcyon Retreat, the luxury French resort investment that promised prestige and steady returns, but left many loan note holders waiting for payments that never came.

You’ll learn:

• The history of Château de la Cazine and its role in the Halcyon Retreat project
• The network of companies behind the scheme and the key individuals involved
• Why the Security Trustee arrangement may not provide the protection investors expect
• Details of the recent large-scale police raid on the property
• The financial red flags, including winding-up petitions and balance-sheet insolvency
• What these developments mean for anyone considering, or already holding, Halcyon-related investments

This is essential listening for anyone who wants to understand the risks of unregulated loan notes and complex overseas property schemes.

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to the Halcyon Retreat related companies, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only. Therefore, it must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by the Halcyon Retreat related companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks. The original loan note holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability.

 In this episode, we investigate growing concerns surrounding Armstrong Infrastructure & Property Finance Limited and Armstrong Bridging International Limited. These are two companies that loan note holders say have missed redemptions and failed to provide answers.

We examine liquidity issues, signs of insolvency, and the sudden disappearance of Armstrong’s website. We also explore the role of directors, the credibility of the Security Trustee, and confusion around FCA regulation.

What We Cover:

• Missed loan note redemptions and concerns about cash flow
• Companies appearing to breach insolvency thresholds
• Lack of clarity over the role of Loan Note Debentures Ltd as Security Trustee
• The disappearance of Armstrong Capital’s website and redirection to Rivington Energy
• Director Andrew Newman’s biography and omission of Armstrong from his current public profile
• FCA authorisation gaps and the potential for misleading impressions
• Key red flags for loan note holders to look out for

Who This Episode Is For:
Loan note holders, financial investigators, legal professionals and anyone involved in unregulated investment products associated with the Armstrong name

If you are affected or have information to share, contact [email protected] or call 020 7504 1300.

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to Armstrong Capital related companies, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only and must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by Armstrong Capital related companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original loan note holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability.

In this episode, we review the ongoing administration of 79th Commercial Three Limited and 79th Luxury Living Five Limited. We discuss Grant Thornton’s recent update, which highlights operational challenges among the Joint Administrators and raises questions about the appointment process.

Key discussion points include:

• The roles of Kroll Advisory’s Robert Goodhew and Andrew Stoneman, and Crowell & Moring LLP’s Paul Muscutt in the administration strategy
 • Grant Thornton’s comments regarding investor concerns and the circulation of an LL6 conflict survey
 • The potential impact of administrative disputes on costs and timelines for loan note holders
 • Kroll Advisory’s position on “no transfer” clauses in loan note documents and Insolvency & Law’s differing legal interpretation
 • Why some creditors are questioning whether the administration is delivering the intended statutory purpose
 • The importance of transparency, creditor representation, and regulatory oversight in unregulated investment schemes

This episode aims to provide loan note holders with clear information about the current situation, encourage stakeholders to seek answers, and explain the lawful routes available for pursuing accountability.

For more information, contact [email protected] or call 020 7504 1300.

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to The 79th Group, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only and must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by The 79th Group companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original Loan Note Holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability.

In this episode, we investigate Tony Hughes, a recurring figure in several high-profile unregulated loan note schemes that have left loan note holders out of pocket and searching for answers.

We cover:

• Tony Hughes’s directorships and shareholding roles in Platinum Assets & Developments Limited
• His earlier involvement with High Street Group, one of the UK’s most notorious investment collapses
• The role of Castle Trust & Management Services as security trustee across multiple schemes
• Overlaps with other familiar names, including William Jackson, Sonali Craddock, and New Capital Link
• Concerns raised by loan note holders who still haven’t received redemptions
• Deleted promotional blogs, disappearing directors, and a trail of repeated patterns
• And the central question: Why do the same people and sales tactics appear again and again in failed schemes?

If you’ve invested in Platinum, High Street Group, or any scheme promoted by New Capital Link, this episode connects the dots that others won’t. Share your experience or raise concerns: 

[email protected]
  Or call: 020 7504 1300

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to William Jackson related companies, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only and must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by William Jackson related companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original loan note holder is fully insulated from legal expense and liability.