Thursday, 11 January 2018

The demise and resurrection of some old crumpet



Crumpet Cashmere took £150k off Crowdcube investors in 2014. Pippa you know who, 'loved ' their stuff. After a liquidation that has taken 2 years, the same founder is still running under the same name, racking up more losses and more debts.


How is that possible?

The founder Dana Juricic has now tried this game several times. We wrote about her here . Back in 2014 she arranged a pre pack deal for her first attempt, Crumpet England which had gone down owing £750k.

So when in 2015, a year after taking Crowdcube's money, she was failing again, she arranged the sale of all the company's assets to a company recently set up, called Ruby and Rude Ltd. She is the owner of Ruby and Rude. She paid £36k for the assets which she had had valued. The company debts were over £400k.

The liquidator, Mr De'ath - can this get any crazier? - accepted this deal!

Now Dana is trading as Crumpet Cashmere Ltd, even though this company no longer exists. 

Whatever - as you might expect the newco which is really called Ruby and Rudy Ltd, is loss making and she is piling up some new debts which she can run away from when the time is right. 

This one might make a movie.

6 comments:

  1. Never mind CC - this is more about someone serially gaming the bankruptcy process

    How is this legal?

    I would like to just not pay off my mortgage, buy my house for half its value and then get another mortgage, rinse repeat.
    But that is wrong - and it is irresponsible of the lenders to lend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3392217/Crumpet-Cashmere-firm-adored-Pippa-Millie-unravels-crowd-funders-lose-thousands-label-s-boss-keeps-trading.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tks - we were all over this information back in 2015 when they were raising on CC but as usual people went ahead regardless - see blog. I have little sympathy for idiots who do not do due diligence or take sound advice. This woman is not to be trusted. Finally there is no evidence that Dana put any money into the business let alone the claim of £250k. Total nonsense. But what can you expect with her history of ripping people off.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps she meant her supposed worth due to her share holding's and the business's CC "pre-money valuation"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. just so you know, Dana is a guy, his wife is called Zara. They are both horrible people who made sure their kids school fees were paid before their staff. Now BBC have gotten in touch with them to do a "Meghan Markle effect" piece, which will boost their profile again. then they can rip off more people. Just follow their instagram. Zara is in Nepal again. which means that I'm sure none of their suppliers were paid so that she could go. They will go into administration again, it is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Normal standards of behaviour do not apply. Both took advantage of gullible people but the whole family is involved, one being a director at one time, others integrating into the local community in a North Essex village where some surprising people supported them and did not spot the signs. Zara's sister had a compulsory winding up order this year.

    ReplyDelete