Investment banker Danilo Latsmanovich covered from displeased customers by the court decision

The court seized the property of Frank Mountain and ordered the payment of loans and interest to them.

But it is hardly possible to execute the court's decision – the property of Frank Mountain is not enough to satisfy the claims, since it has already been fully or partially encumbrances imposed on it by other creditors. As a result of the process, the company of Danilo Latsmanovich will most likely not return even a quarter of the lost investments of customers and has additionally spent huge sums on conducting the process, which as a result will not lead to compensation for the damage caused by the actions of RPM and Frank Mountain.

The legal process conducted by RPM is more like a way to shift all responsibility to the developer in order to avoid claims from investors to the Fund, and according to the court decision, instead of money, the Fund will at best receive shares in companies and projects that exist only on paper. After that, Frank Mountain will go into bankruptcy, Regency Project Management will throw up its hands, and investors will lose the funds entrusted to Danilo Latsmanovich. It should not be forgottent that the general court case against IV FUND LTD SAC — to the fund managed by RPM and to Frank Mountain, in which they are defendants, as well as a number of other partners of the Fund, is still being considered in an English Court, and the Court has not yet made a decision and determined the culprit in this situation. And investors still have reason to suspect the Fund of preliminary collusion with the developer.

Meanwhile, Danilo Latsmanovich, who did not return the lost money to investors, spent the New Year holidays in Dubai. Isn’t it with the missing millions?

REFERENCE

In 2016-2017, IV Fund Limited SAC concluded a number of transactions for the acquisition of land plots and the construction of real estate - hotels, apartments, residential buildings. Companies owned by Frank Mountain were the developer on these projects. In the course of their joint activities, investors lost a large amount of money. To maintain its reputation, the Fund sued Frank Mountain, accusing him of violating during three years the original contractual agreements that were supposed to protect the interests of investors. It was about not appointing a second director (a representative of the Fund) of the joint venture and using the funds not according to a pre-agreed business plan for the purchase of specific objects.

But why, knowing this, and without waiting for the result of the transactions, the Fund, having a financial license (FCA) to provide services in this area, and having a professional responsibility to clients, continued to pour tens of millions of pounds of its clients into a joint venture beyond its control? During the trial, no explanation was given as to why the Foundation chose as its partner the developer company Versant Development & Homes Ltd, created by Frank Mountain in 2016, that is, specifically for a joint project. In the UK market, there are enough solid developers with a proven reputation. How could a one-day company the competition?