Corporate Bonds
Using the same method twice to make your wallet lighter for you
The “Absolute Arbitrage” corporate bond
Absolute Arbitrage Ltd is a company registered in England at Companies House with the Company Number 11515755. Anyone viewing the filing history for this company would see that there are a lot of people coming and going as directors of this company, and that it has a record of living close to the point of being “struck off” by Companies House.
Looking down this list of people you will notice that Mr. Robinson took tenure of the company, together with Mr. David Imperato, in July 2021. Before this point, these two men had been actively promoting the corporate bond in that company that was on offer to qualifying investors.
Whilst the interest rate on the corporate bond seemed extremely attractive to investors, who were used to a sustained period of low interest rates available for savers. The bond offered good returns that were acceptable to the higher level of risk you would expect to have with buying company debt.
At this point please don’t fall down the rabbit hole of focusing on “too good to be true” type reasoning here. Yes, it’s a valid view but there are some genuine corporate bond offerings offering good returns out there. You just have to do your research. However, this isn’t the reason for this site to be telling you this story.
So, what is the story? Well, in short: -
1) Whilst the bond offered good rates of interest to the investor, the rewards of the investment were severely skewed in favour of the Introducer and the company owners. In a genuine investment opportunity there is no reason to be concerned that the company receives rewards for its endeavours – why else would it make the whole investment in the first place? The problem is the perverse rewards offered to Introducers, which might clearly incentivize Introducers to get investors into the bond quickly and without doing their homework nor adhering to strict rules on whether each applicant meets the criteria of a “qualifying investor.”
2) The bond matured (or collapsed) and when it was time to pay investors back there was a problem. The investment proceeds, outstanding interest payments and commissions due were offshore somewhere, held by some very wealthy man based in the UAE who felt averse from honouring the bond’s commitments and redeeming investors’ monies.
3) A lengthy legal process has been ongoing, instigated not by the company officers but by some investors with too much money to lose. Nobody has seen any money from this bond for over two years and it appears that investors may be faced with total or partial loss of their investment.
4) It was incumbent on Mr. Robinson, as a trading IFA, to do proper due diligence in his role of advising clients and promoting this investment. He did not. Indeed, it has been alleged that, in the short time Messrs. Robinson & Imperato were at the helm of Absolute Arbitrage they had access to the “behind the scenes” picture of the bond and those parties involved and would have been able to see that things didn’t add up to the story of arbitrage trading that the Investment Memorandum talked about. In short, they had a second chance to do their homework on the investment and they could have taken action to safeguard all investors’ funds but didn’t.
5) It has been alleged that some monies had disappeared from the company. It will probably take a forensic accountant to confirm or disprove that point. This site hopes that everyone gets their money back, regardless of where it may currently reside.
6) It was further alleged that the two spent their time in charge of the company novating contracts to be under their own control and stealing the “intellectual property” of the company. If the Absolute Arbitrage bond collapsed, then why should this matter? Well, it appears that this know how was used to set up another corporate bond – Mercantile International.
The Mercantile International corporate bond.
Yes, like a phoenix from the flames, Mr. Robinson, together with his business partner Mr. Imperato, set up a virtually identical bond to Absolute Arbitrage. The company behind it is based in the Seychelles, which in itself isn’t a red flag but it does offer a bit of distance between the investor and the legal entity that the investor is putting money into.
Like its predecessor, this bond offers a good return to investors but even better rewards to those who introduce them to the product.
Things were apparently going well until late 2023, when Mercantile started to stretch the realm of its payment terms to everyone other than their investors.
A worrying sign, but suspicions are that the two owners of the company have not suffered the same financial hardship, whether it was in the form of actual remuneration, dividend payments, loans, or other benefits-in-kind. This site can’t verify the validity of such claims as there are no generally available resources available from which to do so, but Mr. Robinson – being the man this site is about – is invited to respond and provide confirmation, evidence, or denial if he sees fit.
At least six months down the line from when these problems started to manifest, and it is confirmed from numerous sources that the problems have not been resolved and payments are still outstanding from the original due dates of late 2023. Indeed, apparently the outstanding debts are snowballing as time goes by.
A more worrying sign is that word is coming through that Mercantile are no longer meeting investor interest obligations. Anyone could conclude that the company has defaulted on its obligations and creditors and investors could consider appropriate legal action. This site, as a minimum, primarily cares that investors’ money is safe and is available to be returned, in full. However, that is not to overlook other creditors, whoever they are and for whatever the reason of the balance outstanding. I’m sure any of those would want to know whether the two Directors of Mercantile have had any financial gain (in whatever form that is taken (as above), particularly over this extended period of default or delay.
So far, not so good. But is that the end of the story?
Unfortunately, the answer is “no.” Allegations have been made that the Mercantile bond Investment Memorandum is a “sham.” There are a number of questions that have been raised with both Directors that seek clarity around statements made in that document but, at the time of this publication, neither Mr. Robinson nor Mr. Imperato have provided any type of response to.
Any false statement or misrepresentation in such an investment document is a serious issue. Of particular concern is the allegation made regarding the bond’s International Securities Identification Number – commonly referred to as “ISIN” – as not being registered with Euroclear, as stated in the brochure. Is this a misunderstanding? Is this a mistake in the brochure that can be cleared up with the production of some evidence of registration at Euroclear or some other appropriate entity? Is this something more nefarious, such as a claim to be registered when, in fact, the bond is not? Hopefully, Mr. Robinson can move very quickly to allay these concerns by providing an evidenced response, as requested.
The list of issues raised regarding Mercantile also includes concerns around how investor monies are being used, which may not be in line with what has been signed up to, given what has been described in the Investment Memorandum. Given the statement that funds are held in “non-depletion” accounts with reputable banks, how would this arrangement enable Messrs. Robinson & Imperato to do anything different with the money if it is true?
The small print in the Investment Memorandum needs checking (and checking again) to see if it provides scope to do non-arbitrage trading. If so, how does the investor take comfort that Mr. Robinson has undertaken the necessary due diligence on each of these potential non-disclosed investment opportunities? If such investment opportunities are being carried out, does any of them individually or collectively change the risk profile of the investor’s investment?