79th Group Update: The Webster Family Freezing Order – Decisive Action or Delayed Optics?

A worldwide freezing order (WFO) was recently granted against David Webster and his sons Jake and Curtis. Long‑time directors and central figures in the 79th Group corporate network. According to online sources, “Counsel for the administrators of a number of 79th Group companies obtained the freeze of their assets, an asset disclosure order and the surrender of passports of the directors”.

This appears to mark a significant escalation in efforts to secure assets following the collapse of the Group. However, when viewed in the context of the Administrators’ own disclosures and the timeline of events, the freezing order raises more questions than it answers.

On paper, it sounds decisive. In practice, it looks like belated theatre rather than timely action.

A Timeline That Highlights Delay

1. October 2022:  Insolvency & Law published content in relation to 79^th loan note products. We were subsequently threatened with defamation and injunctions to remove the publications.  The content was removed.
2. February 2025: City of London Police raid the Websters’ properties. A formal criminal investigation begins.
3. April & May 2025: Administrators from Kroll Advisory and Quantuma Advisory are appointed over 79^th companies.  Grant Thornton are appointed to 79^th Luxury Living Six (LL6).
4. June & July 2025:  Administrator’s proposals were circulated for 79^th companies.
5. July 2025:  In their Investor Update No 3 of 4^th July, Grant Thornton wrote: “GT have been clear from a very early stage that we believe this is a Ponzi scheme (as were COLP) on the basis it satisfies the basic key criteria “.  Why were Kroll and Quantuma so slow to also arrive at this conclusion?
6. August 2025: The Times reported online that the FCA had received a report “that 79th Group was an alleged Ponzi scheme” in November 2024.

By the time Administrators …

(Quantuma and Kroll) assumed control in April and May, they had criminal context.  By mid-Summer they had the benefit of having been in office for a period of time and the Administrator Proposals.  In July, their fellow administrators (Grant Thornton) had already publicized their belief 79^th was a Ponzi scheme.  By August, they had regulatory context.  At any of these points in time, they could have applied immediately for a Freezing Order.  However, no freezing order was sought.

Instead, more than six months after appointment, Kroll and Quantuma instruct their legal team, Crowell & Moring, to obtain a worldwide freezing order against the Websters.

For the companies where administration became inevitable after the Group was de-banked, the Websters nominated Jeremy Woodside of Quantuma to act as administrators.  Why didn’t Quantuma act then against the Websters?   If preventing asset dissipation was a genuine priority, a freezing order could have been sought immediately following appointment.  The months‑long delay raises concerns about whether critical opportunities to preserve assets may have been lost.  

It feels uncomfortably like shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted.

What the Administrators’ Latest Update Reveals

In their latest investor update on 30 October 2025, joint administrators Andrew Stoneman (Kroll) and Jeremy Woodside (Quantuma) disclosed several key findings:

• The Group operated over 100 companies across more than 10 jurisdictions.
• Investigators have identified over 130 bank accounts linked to the Group, with large transfers of investor funds between accounts.
• To date, they have found no assets acquired through the company structures investors were told they were investing into. Despite more than £150 million having been raised.
• Assets that were purchased appear to have been acquired by other companies controlled by the Websters. Some assets have been refinanced to third‑party lenders.
• The Administrators state that the structure and movement of funds bear the hallmarks of one of the largest UK‑based Ponzi schemes.  

Taken together, these disclosures suggest the underlying issues were structural and long-standing, rather than sudden or unforeseen.

Professional Duties Under the Insolvency Code of Ethics and SIP 2

The Insolvency Code of Ethics and Statement of Insolvency Practice 2 (SIP 2) impose clear, mandatory obligations on all insolvency practitioners, including administrators.

The Insolvency Code of Ethics (effective 1 May 2020)

• Section 110.1: “An insolvency practitioner shall comply with the fundamental principles of integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality, and professional behaviour.”
• Section 310.1: “An insolvency practitioner shall act and be seen to act with objectivity, integrity and independence.”
• Section 330.1: “A practitioner shall perform professional work with due care, competence and diligence and in accordance with applicable technical and professional standards.”

In plain terms, these provisions mean Administrators must act honestly, independently, and with diligence. They also must be seen by creditors to do so.

“Due care, competence and diligence” implies acting promptly when assets or evidence are at risk.

The requirement to “act and be seen to act with independence” demands both genuine impartiality and visible transparency in every decision.

Delays or poor communication risk breaching the spirit, if not the letter, of these professional duties.

Statement of Insolvency Practice 2 (SIP 2) – Investigations and Asset Realisation

• Paragraph 4: “Office holders should act in the interests of creditors as a whole and take appropriate steps to protect and recover assets.”
• Paragraph 5: “Investigations should be conducted as soon as practicable after appointment.”
• Paragraph 6: “Office holders should ensure that creditors are provided with sufficient and timely information to enable them to understand the progress of the case.”
• Paragraph 8: “Matters giving rise to concern about the conduct of those involved in the affairs of the insolvent estate should be reported to the appropriate authority promptly.”

SIP 2 therefore requires Administrators to begin investigations immediately. To secure assets without delay, report suspected misconduct promptly, and keep creditors informed.

These are not bureaucratic niceties, they are the core professional standards by which the insolvency profession earns public trust.

When Administrators take months to act on known risks, or communicate progress only in vague terms, they fall short of what SIP 2 describes as “acting in the interests of creditors as a whole.”

Window Dressing or Genuine Progress?

A freezing order is only as effective as its timing.  When deployed promptly, it can help secure assets and prevent dissipation.  When delayed, especially in cases involving complex structures and rapid fund movements, it risks being symbolic rather than substantive.

Given that:

• Police intervened in early 2025
• Administrators had control of the companies from April
• And the freezing order was not sought until October

It is understandable that investors question whether the order reflects decisive action. Or simply a demonstration of activity months after it was most needed.

Why Was Grant Thornton Not Involved?

The investor update goes onto say “Given the lack of adequate explanations from the directors and our concerns as to the whereabouts of the funds invested by investors, the Joint Administrators at Kroll and Quantuma instructed their legal team (Crowell & Moring) to seek worldwide freezing orders and injunctions against the directors and their connected parties”.

Grant Thornton, the Administrators of LL6, one of the primary 79th Group investment vehicles, do not appear to have been included in the freezing‑order process.  The freezing order was obtained by Kroll and Quantuma alone.

Given that all Administrators share the same statutory duties under SIP 2 and the Insolvency Code of Ethics, and considering LL6’s scale and investor exposure, the absence of Grant Thornton raises legitimate questions about coordination and strategy.

There may be procedural or practical explanations for this, but no such clarification has been provided in the available documents. For investors seeking reassurance that a unified recovery effort is underway, this absence is notable.

A Freezing Order That Comes Too Late?

The Administrators themselves acknowledge that:

• They have not found recoverable assets within the companies investors were told they were investing into.
• Many assets appear to sit in unrelated Webster‑controlled entities.
• Several assets have been refinanced.
• Very limited unencumbered assets remain.

If this is the case, then a freezing order issued months after administrator appointment may preserve very little. It may halt movement of assets now, but it cannot reverse movements that took place in the long period before the order was obtained.

A Slow Response to a Fast‑Moving Collapse

Investors may reasonably feel that, despite early warnings and a clear pattern of risk, decisive action came late. The difficulty the Administrators now face, as expressed in their own investor communications, underscores the cost of delay.

Administrators were not short of authority – what was lacking was urgency.

Symbolism Without Substance

Freezing orders make powerful headlines. Their effectiveness depends on timing, the existence of recoverable assets, and it will not recover what was lost yesterday.  If the Administrators truly wished to secure those assets, such orders should have followed immediately after their April appointments. Not half a year later.

The delay leaves investors questioning whether this is a recovery strategy or a public-relations exercise.

Until those responsible for the Administration move with pace, investors will remain spectators to a slow-motion clean-up of a fast-moving collapse.

Call to Action: Investors Should Be Heard

Insolvency & Law Ltd is gathering information from creditors and loan‑note holders affected by the 79th Group collapse.

If you invested in any 79th Group companies and have documents, correspondence, or evidence, please contact the Investigations Team in confidence at:  investigations@insolvencyandlaw.co.uk

Your information may help support collective efforts to hold the appropriate parties accountable and to maximise recoveries.  Do not assume someone else will act. Your voice matters.

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. It 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.