79th Group: The Gatekeepers, the Power Struggle, and the Silence That Shields the System

If you’re a loan note holder caught in the wreckage of the 79th Group, you’ve already suffered the consequences of a failed investment. Now, you’re being silenced by the very professionals who claim to represent your interests.

This is no longer about risk. This is about resistance. Resistance from administrators-Kroll Advisory, who are actively blocking creditor participation in the process under the guise of contract technicalities.

And it raises a very simple question: What are they hiding?

Behind the Curtain: The Three Power Earners in Insolvency

To understand what’s really going on, you need to understand who profits from an insolvency-because it’s rarely the creditors.

There are three groups who get paid in nearly every corporate collapse:

1. The Valuer

They come in early to assess the worth of the assets. Their valuation defines the shape of the estate and the pecking order of who gets paid. They’re crucial, but they’re also contracted by the insolvency practitioner- they don’t work for you.

2. The Insolvency Lawyer

Think of them as the guard dog. Their job is to “protect the estate” against challenges, claims, and requests-especially from unsecured creditors like loan note holders. But in reality, they’re protecting their client’s process. And their fees come straight from the estate-often dwarfing any return to creditors.

There’s an unwritten rule in the profession:
70% of the estate goes to the IP, 30% to the lawyer.
And creditors? They come last, if there’s anything left at all.

3. The Insolvency Practitioner (IP)

They are the ones appointed by the court. Officers with significant legal weight. But it’s worth remembering: the Insolvency Rules were written by practitioners, not for creditors. Influential firms like Cork Gully helped shape the system in their own image. The regime says it protects creditors, however, in practice, it protects the process, and those who control it.

This system was not designed to empower you. It was designed to contain you.

And now, with the 79th Group, it’s doing exactly that.

What Kroll Is Doing-and Why It Matters

Loan note holders, most of them non-UK residents, have lawfully assigned their claims to Insolvency & Law, an experienced creditor entity familiar with UK procedure. This isn’t unusual. Assignments of debt are perfectly legal under the Law of Property Act 1925 and enforceable in equity, even if the original contract says otherwise.

Still, Kroll Advisory, led by Robert Goodhew and Andrew Stoneman, is refusing to accept the transfers. Why?

They argue the loan notes are “non-transferable without issuer consent.”

But let’s look at the facts:

• The issuer is in administration and no longer trading.
• The debts have accrued.
• No other creditors are harmed by the transfers.
• The estate suffers no prejudice.
• Experienced representation is being offered, not unvetted third parties.
• Unrepresented creditors secure an active voice through expert representation 

In legal terms, consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. In practical terms, there is no good reason to say no, unless you’re trying to stop someone from asking the wrong questions.

What We Told Kroll

We wrote to Kroll with clarity, professionalism, and a firm legal position. We made it clear that the loan note assignments in question were valid and enforceable under the Law of Property Act 1925, and effective in equity despite any contractual restriction that might suggest otherwise. There was no ambiguity in the law, and no commercial reason for interference. Nonetheless, we formally requested their express consent.

However, our letter wasn’t just about legal technicalities. It set out the broader context: that most of the original noteholders are based overseas and have little familiarity with UK insolvency procedures. Many feel confused, isolated, and cut out of a process that directly affects their ability to recover anything. They don’t want special treatment, they simply want the right to participate, to be represented, and to make use of the legal mechanisms designed to protect creditors, not exclude them.

We explained that Insolvency & Law…

Is acting as an experienced creditor in these matters. We’ve dealt with complex administrations. We understand the Insolvency Rules. There is no disruption, no prejudice, and no risk to the estate if consent is granted. In fact, no party suffers any detriment from the transfers-not the administrators, not other creditors, and not the estate itself. The only people harmed by the refusal are the noteholders, who are being blocked from asserting their rights through a legitimate and lawful process.

And then we addressed the heart of the issue. These are not speculative future claims, they are accrued debts, tied to a collapsed company with no real prospect of return for unsecured creditors. There is no rational commercial reason to resist a straightforward creditor substitution. Doing so achieves nothing, unless the goal is to obstruct visibility, delay accountability, or protect some interest other than those of the creditors.

We gave Kroll a deadline: 10am, 22 October 2025. That was their opportunity to engage, to respond, to act transparently.

Instead, there was no reply. No explanation. No justification.

Just silence.

And in the context of an administration already called a Ponzi scheme by fellow officers of the court, that silence says more than any refusal ever could.

And in this context, silence isn’t harmless.
It’s calculated. It’s deliberate. And it protects something-or someone.

Silence Is Not Neutral

In a case where Grant Thornton, fellow court officers, have already described the 79th Group as bearing the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme, any attempt to obstruct creditor access should be viewed with deep suspicion.

Why are Kroll and their advisers clinging to defunct clauses in collapsed contracts?
Are they working harder to defend technicalities than to engage with the people who actually lost money? Moreover, why fight this hard to keep creditor representatives out of the room?

The answer isn’t legal. It’s strategic. Silence is a shield. A way to maintain control. To keep scrutiny away. 

What Happens Next

We’re not letting this stand. If consent continues to be withheld, we will take the matter to court under Rule 14.31(5) of the Insolvency Rules. We’ll ask the court to review the refusal, assess its reasonableness, and order appropriate costs.

We will also place this correspondence before the court as evidence, because this isn’t just about process. It’s about fairness, accountability, and the right of creditors to have a voice.

What Loan Note Holders Must Understand

The system is not built for you. But it can be challenged.

And now is the time.

Not when the funds are gone and the doors are closed. Not when distributions have already been decided.

If you’re a 79th Group loan note holder, we urge you to stay informed, stay united, and understand what’s really happening behind the silence.

For more information on how to participate and co-ordinate with other creditors, contact Insolvency & Law at: investigations@insolvencyandlaw.co.uk.

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd does not act as a firm of solicitors or as licensed insolvency practitioners. We do not carry out any regulated activities as defined under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All information and commentary concerning The 79th Group, including that published via our blogs and podcasts, is made available free of charge for informational and educational purposes only and should not be regarded as legal or investment advice.

In suitable circumstances, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by 79th Group companies and act in its own name and at its own cost and risk to pursue enforcement and recovery. Loan note holders assigning claims to I&L are not exposed to the cost of such action.