[ad_1]
H2O Asset Management has written more on its bond affiliated with Lars Windhorst, after agreeing to help a German investor avoid debt.
Once a European star in content management, H2O got into trouble in 2019 with the Financial Times. revealed had many privileges protected in Windhorst, a wonderful businessman and a history of legal issues.
H2O funds allowed ordinary investors to withdraw their funds on a daily basis, but the treasurer temporarily suspended some of them in 2020 after a French finance minister raised concerns about his actions in Windhorst. H2O later split the money, set up closed “side pockets” to sell bonds and hard-to-sell securities, and withdrew more than € 1bn from Investor.
The sellers are hoping to get their money back within a few weeks, but H2O has now told them it has renewed their savings, after cutting a deal that allows Windhorst to delay repaying its debt for six months.
In a letter to depositors Wednesday, H2O revealed that “comparison” of side funds has dropped by 44 percent at times, due to “non-refunds” since they re-formed the contract with Windhorst last year.
Under the May 2021 agreement, H2O said it had merged its various securities into a collateral for a large investment firm in Windhorst Tennor Holding, due to the “early 2022 return”. A German financier told FT in August that Tennor expects to “pay off a large portion of H2O’s debt within a year. [2021]”.
The recent delay in repayment should increase H2O monitoring, which still manages € 16bn in assets even though it has cost a lot of money to investors. In accounts published last month, H2O confirmed that it was “currently under investigation” by a number of regulators, including “non-compliant opposition to a number of guidelines set by the FCA. [the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority]”. The company says it agrees with the investigation.
H2O declined to comment. Tennor told FT that it had “reimbursed large sums of money to all lenders including H2O”.
“Tennor will continue its full-time business and will have to pay off its debts in the coming weeks and months in a timely and frequent manner,” added Windhorst.
The H2O letter to depositors cited a recent Dutch court ruling, in which Windhorst’s lawyers overturned a previous ruling declaring Tennor bankrupt. To settle debt, Windhorst negotiated a six-month debt agreement with the highest debtors including H2O, according to a December 21 court ruling, meaning they would not want to repay their loans at that time.
Dominique Stucki, a lawyer representing a group of funders who took action against H2O, was shocked by the agreement.
“We believe that if the loan was as reliable and robust as H2O claims, I do not understand why they would have to relinquish their rights and accept a six-month suspension,” he said.
The insolvency lawsuit against Tennor was brought by Panamanian Corvallis Navigation, affiliated with billionaire heir Athina Onassis, on a loan of more than € 36m. The diver received a fortune from his grandfather, the Greek navigator Aristotle Onassis.
A lawyer working for the company told FT that “Corvallis or Miss Onassis does not want to comment or comment yet”.
Apart from Corvallis and H2O, other major creditors who have signed the suspension include Heritage Travel and Tourism, a Bahamian car linked to Monegasque billionaire Manfredi Lefebvre d’Ovidio.
Heritage won a landmark decision against Windhorst in the High Court in London last year, which ordered the financier to pay € 172m to honor a number of antitrust agreements, which include divisions in companies including underwear manufacturers La Perla.
The French bank Natixis is still the majority owner of H2O, although it announced last year that it was planning. losing its value. Natixis announced last month that the sale is still in progress and will also announce “timely and in accordance with its regulatory requirements”.
Prior to the controversy, H2O showed interest in Natixis, often paying millions of dollars a year.
Mazars’ H2O analysts provided relevant feedback on its 2020 accounts, also pointing out that there were “uncertainties” that could lead to “serious doubts” about the company’s continued continued concern.
[ad_2]
Source link
