Wine Name:

Friday, 1 November 2013

Ian Paul Vanderhook (Bordeaux UK Ltd) banned as director for 9 years

Ian Vanderhook (Bordeaux UK Ltd) has been banned as a UK company director for nine years. The disqualification period started from 18th October 2013. Give the details below Vanderhook looks to have got away relatively lightly with a nine year ban as 15 years is the maximum ban, especially as Vanderhook has failed to cooperate with either the Insolvency Service or the Liquidator.

Unfortunately a ban as a company director still allows Vanderhook to operate as a sole trader or in a partnership – he could, of course, hook up with Andrew Dunne, who was almost certainly the true brains and knowledge behind Bordeaux UK Ltd. Bordeaux Northern Cyprus Partnership has a certain ring to it! 

Given the details in the Insolvency Service press release there would appear to be good grounds for a police investigation and criminal charges.

Press release from UK Insolvency Service:
“Mismanagement on a colossal scale” leads to disqualification for wine investment company director

Ian Paul Vanderhook, the director of a wine investment company – Bordeaux UK Ltd (‘Bordeaux UK) which took in more than £23m from investors and folded with debts of more than £10m - has been banned as a director for nine years for failing to keep proper company books and records.

The disqualification, which started on 18 October 2013 following an investigation by the Insolvency Service, means that Mr Vanderhook (34) cannot be a director, manage or control a company until 2022.

Mr Vanderhook gave undertaking to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation not to be a director or manage or control a company until after the disqualification ends.

Bordeaux UK took over £23million from investors between October 2008 and November 2011 of which, only £4.6m was used to purchase wine. The company went into creditors’ liquidation on 30 November 2011 with debts of over £10m but with only £1.7 million of wine available. Mr Nedim Ailyan was appointed as the liquidator.

Of the remaining £19million, Mr Vanderhook benefitted from at least £2million whilst £13million cannot be explained or accounted for as business- related, due to the lack of accounting records.

The investigation showed Mr Vanderhook had failed to keep adequate books and records for three companies, Bordeaux UK Limited, Van Der Hook Management Limited and Van Der Hook Consultancy Limited.

The former lift engineer set up Bordeaux UK in 2002 to encourage members of the public to invest in fine wines, predominantly from the Bordeaux region of France.

The wine recommended to investors by brokers employed by Bordeaux UK was both “In-Bond” - bottled wine stored in bonded warehouses in the UK - and “En-Primeur” - a method of purchasing wines whilst the vintage is still in the barrel and thus not bottled or available to be shipped for at least a year.

In addition, the liquidator was forced to employ specialist agents to assist with unravelling the mess left by Mr Vanderhooks’ failure to keep proper records and to analyse and reconcile claims from investors in excess of £10m.

The liquidator, Nedim Ailyan, called the situation a “mismanagement on a colossal scale” and further stated:

“In my experience the books and records were completely inadequate and we were unable to ascertain the level of creditors due to deficiencies within them. As an example we have instances of wine that was allegedly allocated to individuals but there is no record of the wine being transferred.

“In addition, individuals alleged that the company disposed of wine on their behalf and this was to either be replaced with other stocks of wine or alternatively the proceeds passed to them but this never happened.

“There were no financial records available to us that would have helped us to formulate a statement of affairs or to reconcile individuals’ accounts and on average it was taking at least a day to reconcile each individual’s account due to the volume of sales.”

Furthermore, due to the lack of any accounting records, the Insolvency Service is unable to establish what taxes were due to HM revenue & Customs.

It was also not possible to determine why Van Der Hook Management Limited and Van Der Hook Consultancy Limited received and paid out money from the Bordeaux account as Mr Vanderhook claimed neither company was actively trading.

Given Van Der Hook Management Limited used the trading style of Bordeaux UK, it is suspected their accounts were used for funds due to Bordeaux UK Ltd.

Mr Vanderhook has not co-operated with the Insolvency Service or the liquidator and has not explained the financial transactions or why investors have lost in excess of £10 million.

David Brooks, a Chief Examiner for the Insolvency Service stated:
“This case serves as an example of why companies must keep accounting records and make them available to the liquidator or administrator.

“Without the books and records, costs in the liquidation have increased and what happened to a large amount of investor's money cannot be explained.

“The fact investors have lost in excess of £10million whilst only £1.7million of wine stock was available to them makes this an especially serious case.

“Directors who do not maintain and preserve their company’s books and records adequately will be investigated by the Insolvency Service and in the appropriate cases, disqualified to protect the public and the business community.”

Notes to Editors
Ian Paul Vanderhook is of Kent and his date of birth is 8 August 1979.
Bordeaux UK Limited was incorporated on 19 September 2002 and entered creditors voluntary liquidation on 30 November 2011.

A disqualification order has the effect that without specific permission of a court, a person with a disqualification cannot;
act as a director of a company;
take part, directly or indirectly, in the promotion, formation or management of a company or limited liability partnership;
act as an insolvency practitioner; or
be a receiver of a company’s property.
In addition, many other restrictions are placed on disqualified directors by other regulations.


  1. Another swap your wine for diamonds
    Mayfair world wide trading limited

    Document CH01 25/09/2013 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR ADAM EDWARDS / 25/09/2013

    Document AD01 25/09/2013 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 25/09/2013 FROM
    CM6 1BW


    Capital Statement Icon LATEST SOC 14/08/2013 14/08/13 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL;GBP 999


    Name & Registered Office:
    Company No. 08649719
    Status: Active
    Date of Incorporation: 14/08/2013

    Country of Origin: United Kingdom

  2. Jim, Are we to assume Mr. Vander'Crook' will now look to be facing some sort of criminal investigation?
    There seems a case to be answered on Conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law.
    Many investors have been persuaded to make transfers of funds to Bordeaux UK Ltd for the purpose of investment in good quality wines on their behalf by dishonestly
    a) making false representations that the funds provided by the investors would be directed to the purchase of such wines as represented;
    b) failing to direct the funds provided by the investors to the purcahse of wines as represented;
    c) providing documentation to investors about their respective purchases which falsely represented the position

    Being banned from becoming a Company Director is unlikely to have much of an effect on Ian Vander'Crook'. He will simply get another willing and stupid person to act as a Director on his behalf.

    1. Anon. As unaccounted for money is around £13 million I would hope that the police are investigating, especially as it is likely that Andrew Dunne had a role in the company. £13 million is substantially more than the Nouveau World Wines/Finbow frauds for which three people are currently in prison.

  3. Hello Jim, I've attempted top post 2/3 comments to articles over recent months, with the last one being yesterday. They have not been published and i'm unsure why this may be? Please could you confirm why this may be? Thanks

    1. As you post anonymously it is difficult to know which comments weren't published. When decideding whether to publish a comment or not I have to bear in mind libel. Equally I'm reluctant to publish abuse.