Correction & Apology: Not for smearer & charlatan Julie Meyer but for her ex legal counsel Peter Bradley – the Steve Lazarus case

On 24 May 2018 I ran an article on the case of former Ariadne employee Steve Lazarus who, like so many others working for Julie “Lingerie on Expenses” Meyer was not paid and had to seek legal redress. That article needs correcting, not for what it said about the appalling behaviour of Meyer but for a question posed of her, now ex, legal Counsel Peter Bradley. An amended article is below.

The settlement paper at the bottom of this article and the original was stamped by the Court to conclude the case – successfully – brought by Lazarus & Maverick (Steve’s firm) for his pay. The Consent Order is dated 8 December but it is merely a consent Order not a Court appearance so there can be no suggestion that Peter Bradley – who signed for Ariadne – was not in any way “upfront” with a court since there was no court and there therefore can be no question of Mr Bradley misleading the Court. The original article did not make that suggestion but in case anyone interpreted it that way, let us be clear that it is not the case. I accept that any suggestion that this was the case was an error.

Peter has agreed in a conversation yesterday that that he was aware that Ariadne had approached administrator Leonard Curtis on 14 November since he made the introduction. But that was merely to deal with a winding up petition against it from GQ Employment. As at 8 December Bradley agrees that the Company was aware that a second party was also planning a winding up order but that, at that time, he believed these orders could be negotiated away before 18 December when the GQ case was due to be heard.

Thus when signing the agreement on 8^t December to pay Lazarus money on 20 December and 20 January 2018 he acted in good faith. Let’s get this straight I am sure that this is the case.And that is because..

Peter tells me that he was unaware that as at 8^th December Ariadne Capital Limited would not have the wherewithal to pay the settlement as agreed with Lazarus. Indeed, he was told it would. Mr Bradley states that he was, at that time, the recently appointed consultant General Counsel. He was not responsible for financial matters. What was stated in the annual report w is what he believed was the financial position of the Group. These were signed off by the sole director, Julie Meyer confirming this to be the case.

In fact as we now know, thanks to the administrator, Ariadne had no cash at all by early December, not a cent. It had liabilities of c£3 million and its stated asset backing of £7 million ( large sums overdue from other Meyer controlled entities) was fiction – the administrator has not been able to realise even a brass farthing from the supposed assets.

So, like many, Bradley believed that the financial position of Ariadne was healthy enough thanks to its annual report and that is why it is clear that he acted in good faith with Lazarus. The reality is that the ACL annual report was sheer fiction and the author of that fiction is Julie Marie Meyer and no-one else.

The corrected article reads:

In the latest trove of Julie Meyer documents emerging at Winnileaks we find a cracking case of another supplier to Ariadne Capital Limited (now in administration) having to take it to Court to get paid. But I wonder was it paid? I believe it did not get a cent.

The case was brought by Lazarus & Maverick which supplies some sort of management training. Ariadne dragged it out, appealing in the summer against an original defeat. But on 8 December it signed a consent order stamped by the Court agreeing to pay in two tranches, on 20 December and a month later. That order is below.

Ariadne went into administration on December 18 so, in fact, L&M, almost certainly did not get a cent. It will merely have incurred legal costs with Slater & Gordon.

I have contacted Alex Lazarus who co- runs L&M to ask if her firm has been paid but have received no reply.

The services provided by L&M appear to be that of its director and 50% shareholder (the other 50% belonging to his Mrs, Alex Lazarus). The Julie defence (rejected by the Courts) is that Mr Lazarus was not doing his job properly as he was a sexist beast. I quote from a blog post by the devout Christian:

All the same, it was tremendously hard psychologically to deal with the fact that those I hired and trusted to help me build my firm were either lining their own pockets or sabotaging the firm.

Sadly, they were by no means the only ones. One of our senior advisors, Steve Lazarus, sent me timesheets that only accounted for 5% of his time, forcing me to dispute his invoices. This isn’t just Lazarus being unscrupulous. Instead, fits into a documented (and depressing) trend of men trying to fleece their female bosses out of money. I’ve been stunned at how this discrimination.

The blog - written after the courts had found for Lazarus and Ariadne had agreed to settle - goes on to "expose" a number of other folks who are nasty to Julie only because they are sexist beasts. I am on the list. It is utterly defamatory and you can read it in full HERE. And it shows that smearing with lies is how Meyer deals with critics and those to whom she owes money.

It is not the only time Julie has smeared me. You may remember she recycled lies about me which were first invented by the same folks who sent me death threats for exposing the Quindell fraud. That was one of a series of articles she posted about her critics on LinkedIn which were so defamatory that LinkedIn removed them, I did not complain. I would have allowed her article to stay for it exposes her and her tactics for dealing with whistleblowers, journalists and those to whom she owes cash.