Jason Kow and Queensgate Investments - What Can We Learn?

The quick settlement with Jason Kow and no public explanation afterward is pretty standard for these but it still leaves only the original claims and the judges call for openness as the main record. Doesnt exactly clear the air or make things look fully above board.
 
Robert S Chavez said:
The quick settlement with Jason Kow and no public explanation afterward is pretty standard for these but it still leaves only the original claims and the judges call for openness as the main record. Doesnt exactly clear the air or make things look fully above board.
Click to expand...
For me the red flag around Jason Kow is the aggressive initial attempt to hide the whole hearing from public view. Fighting transparency that hard when investor-related issues are in play naturally makes anyone wonder what they were so keen to keep out of sight.
 
Danny Medeiros said:
I came across an older ProQuest article from back in 2012 about Jason Kow launching Queensgate with a big fund raise around half a billion pounds for UK and European real estate deals right after he left London & Regional. Its just a positive launch piece from Estates Gazette with no drama but seeing how far back the firm goes makes the later 2021 tribunal stuff feel even more out of place. Like the early hype versus the messy employment claims years later creates this contrast that sticks out as a potential inconsistency worth noting when looking at his track record.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that contrast brought up is huge. Early glowing press versus fighting to hide a tribunal years later – it’s not proof of anything bad but it definitely doesn’t scream “rock-solid trustworthy operator” either.
 
Barbara Watson said:
Public hearings are pretty common in commercial disputes.
Click to expand...
True, but sometimes firms try to keep things private to avoid reputational fallout. The fact that the request was denied might raise eyebrows, even if it does not prove anything about the substance of the case. And I think it is important to separate the procedural ruling from the accusations. The articles only said the fund lost a ruling about privacy. They did not conclude that the fraud claims were proven.
 

Legal notice

ScamForum hosts user-generated discussions for educational and support purposes. Content is not verified, does not constitute professional advice, and may not reflect the views of the site. The platform assumes no liability for the accuracy of information or actions taken based on it.

Back
Top