As an asset management professional of over 30 years who has been advising investors in Arch Cru for some three years, I despair at the bickering within the IFA industry which is characterised by some of today’s comments.
Like it or not, one of the prime reasons there has been so little progress in a case where the blame and responsibilities for Arch Cru are blindingly obvious is the shambolic lack of organisation within the IFA industry.
For that reason alone, Gillian Cardy (whom I neither knew nor had met until two months ago) deserves every credit for taking up the cudgels, bringing in the appropriate professional and legal skills and battling to get IFAs behind the case driven by Harcus Sinclair.
I simply do not understand why this is an issue as all we are asking is for IFAs to put their Arch Cru investors in touch with Harcus Sinclair. There is no up front cost, there is no intention to use this contact to attack IFAs and this is almost certainly the last/ only chance of both investors and IFAs getting the result they deserve. Is that really so difficult and so what if the IFA Centre gains more members? Good luck to Gillian, she deserves it.
Just to explain the legal situation in brief, the case involves deep analysis of the structures and regulations and must be driven by investors who have suffered loss, directly or indirectly from Arch Cru. This is why previous legal efforts have failed on one or both counts. We already have much detailed analysis of the structures and regulations and the indications are that the case is powerful. We already have substantial interest from investors but need to build the investor base further. I must dispute Nic Cicutti’s comment that there are not enough investors outside the S404 scheme. There are, and many are already in contact with Harcus Sinclair.
All IFAs with Arch Cru investors need to do therefore is put those investors in touch with Harcus Sinclair. All it costs is some administration time.