NorthEdge Capital Faces July 1 Court Showdown Against Fraud Investigator
Robertson, who operates a one-man consultancy called International Fraud & Investigation Services Ltd, has accused NorthEdge and its due diligence partner Grant Thornton of overlooking and even enabling misconduct, including fraud and Ponzi schemes. Legal observers note that the court must first assess whether the case has enough factual basis to proceed or if it should be dismissed outright under Civil Procedure Rule 3.4.
Since its launch in 2009, NorthEdge has grown into a major regional player, managing nearly £1 billion in assets. Its investments span technology, healthcare, and business services, including notable exits and a strong relationship with Grant Thornton for transactional support. NorthEdge is expected to argue that Robertson's claims are baseless, lacking the specific evidence required for such serious allegations.
Industry experts note that defamation claims must be backed by concrete facts—dates, documents, and witness testimony not vague assertions. Without those, the court is unlikely to allow the matter to move forward.
John Robertson, with no formal legal training, has built a public persona as an independent fraud investigator. His company, founded in 2023, remains under scrutiny for late filings and was recently subject to but escaped compulsory strike-off actions. Robertson has previously filed lawsuits on his own behalf, often acting without legal counsel.
His public communications, including social media posts filled with memes and unsubstantiated claims, have led to account suspensions and cast doubt on his credibility. In early 2024, a tribunal in Scotland dismissed one of his employment claims due to procedural delays and an earlier signed settlement.
The July 1 hearing will determine whether the court sees enough merit in the allegations to move toward disclosure. If NorthEdge's application to strike out the claim is successful, the case will end swiftly, and Robertson could face steep legal costs. If it proceeds, he'll need to provide evidence supporting his claims, or risk summary judgment.
A full trial remains the most unlikely scenario but could materialize if Robertson clears the disclosure stage. Such a development would extend the timeline into late 2025 and require witness and expert testimonies.
Legal professionals and finance insiders are closely monitoring this case, viewing it as a litmus test for how courts handle private litigants who file far-reaching accusations without clear evidence. A dismissal would reaffirm the judiciary's commitment to screening meritless claims. On the other hand, allowing the case to proceed could have broader implications, opening the door to more aggressive legal challenges against investment firms.
For NorthEdge, the stakes are high not only to protect its reputation but also to send a message about its commitment to compliance and thorough due diligence. The coming days will reveal whether Robertson's claims hold any legal water or dissolve under judicial scrutiny.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
Trump document dumps raise questions of distraction
The Trump administration has moved to release tranches of documents from controversial past investigations amid increasing scrutiny into its handling of the Epstein investigation — prompting criticism that the White House is seeking a distraction. Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released 114 pages of documents related to the investigation into Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election — something President Trump raised again this week when he said former President Obama was guilty of treason in connection with the matter. Then on Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi released an Office of Inspector General review into Hillary Clinton's private email server, sharing it with Congress. Hours later, Bondi and Gabbard released 230,000 pages related to the investigation into the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination. 'It doesn't take a whole lot of guesswork to say, 'Gee, do you think they kind of, maybe, sort of want to change the subject?'' said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has called for the release of financial records related to Jeffrey Epstein, given his numerous wire transfers. 'I'm just saying — just saying — maybe. Possibly. Conceivably. That could be it.' The flood of information has not gone unnoticed. 'They're not dumping documents. They're making up lies,' said Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. 'The Trump administration is constantly promising conspiracy and then failing to deliver, which is what they did with Epstein, which is now why we're creating a whole new conspiracy, which is that President Obama is guilty of treason. It's a Ponzi scheme of conspiracy theories.' When asked about Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump pivoted to talking about his predecessor. 'I don't really follow that too much. It's sort of a witch hunt. Just a continuation of the witch hunt. The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold.' In a rare public statement, Obama called the accusations against him an effort at distraction. 'Our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,' an Obama spokesperson said. 'But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' It was Gabbard's Wednesday release of an additional classified report on the 2016 election put together by the House Intelligence Committee that most alarmed Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'The only thing not being released is the Epstein files. But today, today's action sets a new low for a DNI,' Warner said, using an abbreviation for director of national intelligence. 'Of course it's a distraction. But this one is so grossly over the top, that it will put people in harm's way,' he added, noting that the House report references intelligence sources and methods. Release of the documents gave MAGA influencers who were angry over the lack of Epstein disclosures for weeks a new topic — and grievance — to push. After Gabbard's first release, MAGA personalities called to arrest Obama administration officials and even the former president himself. A study by Media Matters found that Fox News had mentioned Obama three times more than Epstein since Gabbard released her report Friday. Conversations about the former president spiked overall — more than doubling in the days after the Friday release. But despite some conservative voices elevating Gabbard's releases, they have gotten mixed results. While some have called the releases an important form of transparency and a delivery on a campaign promise, that has not negated their interest in Epstein. House GOP leaders, for instance, moved to send members home for August recess a day early after disputes about the Epstein matter — and an unwillingness to face Democratic votes trying to squeeze Republicans on the Epstein issue — stymied the House. And the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday voted to subpoena Epstein's convicted ex-girlfriend Maxwell, following a motion from Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.). In a separate vote late Wednesday, another Oversight panel moved to subpoena the files, as well as information on other figures. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who has called for the release of numerous classified files and is leading an investigation into the JFK assassination, disputed that the timing had anything to do with Epstein. 'I know for a fact that the MLK documents were in the queue and scheduled for release, and so the timing was not obviously related,' Luna said. 'The MLK stuff was slated for release. … And then the Russia collusion evidence — documents of the hoax, actually, I also heard was scheduled for release. So I think that they're just trying to show that they're very transparent.' Luna said it was proper to subpoena Maxwell, though she added that it would be improper for the Epstein associate to receive a pardon. 'I maintain my same position — haven't changed. We should see the documents,' Luna said. For his part, Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) swiftly released the Clinton documents shared with him by Bondi. 'When you've been waiting eight years to get documents, you release them as soon as you get them,' he said. Still, others see the issue as a problem of the administration's own making after years of embracing and promoting conspiracy theories, including those about Epstein. 'They've got a problem,' a source close to the White House said on the sentiment inside the Trump team. 'It's a little bit of the chickens coming home to roost. When you populate your administration [full] of people who propagated this and then all of a sudden, they hold the keys to the kingdom, now the true believers who aren't in government want to say, 'OK, open it up.' At some point this is where the ideal of the campaign, the promises made in the campaign, actually come home to roost. There may be nothing there, but they created a cloud in expectations that there was something there,' the source close to the White House said. 'Whenever Trump is truly in trouble, he changes the story by whatever means necessary,' added one longtime GOP lobbyist. It's not clear that the strategy is working. 'They are releasing these other files, but they're refusing to release the files they promised their base, the Epstein files. I think they're digging their hole deeper,' said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former House Intelligence Chair amid the GOP investigation into the 2016 election. He noted that the latest information implies intelligence leaders mishandled the investigation by noting that Russia never accessed vote totals — something that was never in dispute. 'They're damned by the implication that they're pushing out all this other stuff, and they're still refusing to release the Epstein files.'
USA Today
4 days ago
- USA Today
Young people always worry about Social Security. Older people are joining them.
Americans are worrying more about Social Security, and the Trump administration may be partly to blame. In an AARP survey released July 22, only 36% of Americans voiced confidence in the future of the retirement trust fund, down from 43% in 2020. Another July survey, from the nonprofit Alliance for Lifetime Income, found that 58% of older Americans fear Social Security cuts because of recent news about potential changes to the program. 'These fears are not new. But I do think they are growing,' said Jean Chatzky, an education fellow with the Alliance's Retirement Income Institute and CEO of HerMoney. How soon will Social Security run out of money? Fears of a Social Security shortfall have loomed for decades. Lately, though, the agency's fiscal plight seems to be getting worse. New federal projections, released in June, show the combined Social Security trust funds will run short in 2034. That date is one year earlier than the Social Security Administration reported a year ago. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, which pays benefits to retirees and their families, is fully funded only until 2033. 'And I think that's close enough in the viewfinder for even older people to think, 'Holy moly, what's going to happen to me?'' Chatzky said. Americans young and old worry about Social Security Younger Americans tend to worry more about Social Security than older Americans. In the new AARP survey, 25% of people ages 18-49 voiced confidence in the program's future, compared with 48% of those 50 and older. The new report from the Alliance for Lifetime Income is striking, because it shows heightened Social Security fears among older Americans. The industry group enlisted IPSOS to conduct a nationally representative survey of 3,502 adults ages 45-75. Among the findings: Trump, DOGE cuts have disrupted Social Security Social Security has been in the headlines all year, and not just because of the coming shortfall. The Trump administration has thrown the agency into upheaval, with a cascade of staff cuts, rule changes, website outages and leadership shuffles, a routine that played out across the federal bureaucracy under the cost-cutting eye of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. (Musk himself eventually bowed out.) Both Trump and Musk sowed doubt in the integrity of the venerable benefits program. In a March speech before Congress, Trump spoke of 'shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud' in Social Security. Around the same time, Musk told podcaster Joe Rogan that Social Security was 'the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.' Taken together, the events seemed to shake public confidence. New benefit claims were up by more than 15% in March, compared with the same month a year ago. 'Fearmongering has driven people to claim benefits earlier, 'cause they're afraid they're not going to claim benefits at all,' said Leland Dudek, acting Social Security commissioner at the time, in a March public meeting. Is Trump undermining public faith in Social Security? Some Social Security watchdogs say the Trump administration has eroded public faith in the program. 'I think there's really been a sea change since January 20,' said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting and expanding Social Security. 'I've been working on this for half a century, and I've never seen this kind of chaos and undoing of the administration of the program.' The notion that Social Security faces a shortfall suffuses the national conversation about retirement. Older Americans wonder if their monthly checks will go down, rather than up, during their golden years. Many younger Americans have doubled down on retirement savings, partly for fear that Social Security won't fully support them. 'What we find is, whenever Social Security is in the headlines, it strikes fear and anxiety into the hearts of so many, especially those who rely so heavily on Social Security,' said Ramsey Alwin, CEO of the nonprofit National Council on Aging. Faith in the future of Social Security hinges partly on political party. The new AARP survey found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express confidence in the program's future, by a margin of 44% to 32%. During the Obama administration, by contrast, AARP found that Democrats voiced more faith in Social Security than Republicans. Social Security administrators, for their part, have sometimes blamed the news media for stirring up public doubt about the agency's stability. In March, they took the unusual step of posting a press release to contradict media reports about the closure of Social Security field offices. AARP issued a rare rebuke of Social Security administrators But not all reports of Social Security instability have come from the news media. In February, AARP, the powerful interest group for older Americans, issued a rare public rebuke of the agency. 'AARP is hearing from thousands of older Americans confused and concerned about their Social Security payments, the status of Social Security field offices, and inexcusably long wait times on the phone to get their questions answered,' said Nancy LeaMond, AARP executive vice president. In March, AARP members peppered Congress with 2 million messages and calls about their Social Security concerns. AARP leaders touched on that nerve in a July 22 press conference about the new survey, released to coincide with Social Security's 90th anniversary. 'We can't afford for politicians to play games with the future of Social Security,' said Myechia Minter-Jordan, CEO of AARP. 'And we'll fight as hard and as long as we need to, to ensure that Social Security remains the economic bedrock of retirement for generations to come.'
Hamilton Spectator
5 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
‘No compromises': Ottawa issues warning to Toronto about housing funding over sixplex vote
The stalemate between Toronto and the federal government over the city's housing policy looks no closer to being resolved this week, as Ottawa asked the municipality to 'revisit' its plans or risk funding cuts, and Mayor Olivia Chow responded by saying the city's strategy is already exceeding targets. In a letter to Chow dated Monday, Housing Minister Gregor Robertson reiterated his 'disappointment' with council's decision last month to not allow sixplexes — which are detached residential buildings with six units — citywide. Instead, council approved them in just nine of the city's 25 wards , eight of them in old Toronto and East York, after suburban councillors opposed the wider proposal over concerns denser housing would cause traffic and parking problems in their neighbourhoods. In Robertson's letter, which was added to the agenda of this week's council meeting , the minister wrote that the sixplex vote 'goes against the level of ambition' Toronto committed to in its $471-million Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) agreement with the federal government. Although he noted that allowing sixplexes as-of-right across Toronto was just one of 35 milestones in that agreement, the measure was anticipated to allow the city to issue almost 12,000 additional housing permits over three years. 'I encourage the City of Toronto to revisit the measures they could implement to address the housing crisis and to restore the ambitious scope of this agreement,' Robertson wrote, warning that he would 'make no compromises … on the level of ambition' of the HAF deals the federal Liberals have reached with Toronto and 240 other municipalities. While the minister didn't specifically demand council revisit its decision on sixplexes, he emphasized 'the possibility of reduced funding if the City of Toronto does not present solutions that (ensure) the spirit of this agreement is met.' He suggested the federal government work with the city in the coming months 'to implement an appropriate response.' An annual report on the agreement is scheduled for Dec. 20, 2025, and Robertson told CBC Radio on Wednesday that Ottawa will review the agreement with Toronto in January. The two sides have 'six months ahead of us to sort this all out,' he said. Robertson's letter didn't say how much funding Toronto stands to lose if it doesn't improve its housing strategy. But in March, then housing minister Nate Erskine-Smith warned in a letter to Chow that if Toronto didn't 'fully implement' its HAF commitments, the city could lose 25 per cent of its annual payout through the agreement . The municipality estimated that as a cut of about $30 million. In a written response to Robertson on Wednesday, the mayor made no promises to reconsider the sixplex decision. Instead, she asserted that Toronto 'has been the leading municipal partner in getting housing built,' and was on track to exceed the HAF target of building almost 61,000 net new homes over the next three years. She wrote that the city is speeding up development approvals, kick-starting construction on thousands of rental units by offering builders incentives and tax breaks, and allowing more density by expanding permissions for housing types such as mid-rises, fourplexes and garden suites. 'We are making progress on multiple fronts: zoning, building, cutting red tape, and protecting existing homes. This is transformational change that will see more housing built in our city,' Chow wrote. The push for sixplexes citywide is tied to $471 million in federal funding. The push for sixplexes citywide is tied to $471 million in federal funding. The mayor supports allowing sixplexes across the city, but has faced criticism from housing advocates for not doing more to get the proposal through council. Her housing chair introduced the nine-ward compromise at the June 25 council meeting, arguing it was the best way to advance the sixplex plan given that citywide permissions didn't have majority support. Speaking to reporters ahead of Wednesday's council meeting, Chow suggested it would be up to members who have opposed sixplexes in their wards to decide whether permissions for them would be expanded. 'We just examined it last council and already nine councillors have said yes. If tomorrow or even today another councillor said, 'Yes we will buy in on it' — great,' she said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
