Linchpin funded practice growth with client money
Exclusive
War with Dover ‘destroyed me’, says ex-adviser:

Linchpin funded practice growth with client money

Yes

Documents tabled in the Federal Court have shown Linchpin Capital used funds from investors to allow its aligned advisers to buy client books in a breach of the Corporations Act.

In a sworn affidavit filed in the Federal Court in Queensland, ASIC solicitor Anne Gubbins said Linchpin had engaged in “misleading and deceptive conduct” by seeking investment in a managed investment scheme and subsequently using the funds “for its own purposes”.

The affidavit alleged the fund, called Endeavour, had entered into related party transaction in contravention of the Corporations Act, however Linchpin is contesting these claims.

"Monies invested in funds managed by Linchpin and Endeavour have been misapplied or misappropriated by Linchpin and Endeavour," said the affidavit.

According to the affidavit, advisers licensed by Linchpin’s subsidiary dealer groups were promoting a registered managed investment scheme, which, in turn, was solely invested in an unregistered fund also operated by Linchpin.

The registered scheme’s product disclosure statement claims the fund will invest in “a diversified range of loans” including “commercial and corporate loans able to be secured by registered fixed and floating charges”, as well as non-residential mortgages.

However, Ms Gubbins’ affidavit said $15,910,848 of the registered scheme’s $16,457,704 total assets were invested in units in Linchpin’s unregistered scheme.

Of the unregistered scheme’s $21,027,349 total assets, $20,734,416 was used to fund loans to 25 “entities and individuals”, with a further $590,602 held in cash.

The affidavit also included quotes from an examination conducted by Ms Gubbins of Linchpin executive director Paul Nielsen, who told Ms Gubbins the unregistered fund “has two main things it invests in”: financing advisers licensed by Linchpin subsidiary Beacon, and providing funding to Linchpin itself.

Beacon received a loan of $3 million from the unregistered fund on 10 February 2014, which was increased to $4 million on 20 April 2016 and then further increased to $5 million on 30 September 2016.

Linchpin itself was loaned $3 million by the unregistered fund on 1 August 2014, which was increased to $6 million on 1 July 2015.

A series of loans were also made to financial advisers within Linchpin’s dealer groups for “the borrowers to finance the acquisition of additional books of clients for the borrower”.

Ms Gubbins also noted that two Linchpin directors, Paul Raftery and Peter Daly (who also serves as one of the three members on the investment committee for both schemes, alongside Mr Nielsen and fellow Linchpin director Ian Williams), were also provided with loans of $30,000 and $125,000 respectively.

The affidavit said Mr Raftery was supplied with a loan to finance his divorce, secured by “a security interest and an equitable mortgage over all Linchpin shares” held by Mr Raftery.

Mr Daly’s shares in Linchpin were also used as security for the $125,000 loaned to him from the unregistered scheme.

Documentation regarding the loan supplied to Mr Daly said the purpose for the money was to assist Mr Daly through “financial difficulties” facing his family, however Mr Williams said during examination the “major” use of the funds was to finance Mr Daly’s daughter’s wedding.

“It strikes me as an expensive wedding, but that’s been the primary purpose of that balance,” Mr Williams said.

Mr Daly maintained under examination that there was no conflict of interest in him receiving a loan from the scheme, but acknowledged there was nothing preventing him from disposing of the shares used as security.

The case remains ongoing and Linchpin are contesting the claims, with Mr Daly writing in an email to staff seen by ifa that it will be “business as usual” for the company’s licensees.

Linchpin funded practice growth with client money
ifa logo
FROM THE WEB

SUBSCRIBE TO THE IFA DAILY BULLETIN

Business Strategy