Court finds Mayfair 101 sold high-risk notes as bank term-deposit equivalents
Mayfair 101 Group (M Core, M+ Fixed Income Notes) · Fixed income notes and property finance
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Regulatory & litigation records
Would have surfaced ASIC's 2020 proceedings over advertising.
Can mislead when: Court records lag and name spellings vary. A clean record can mean the problem has not reached court yet.
Unit economics & burn
Would have tested whether promised yields matched loan book returns.
Can mislead when: Cost allocation is a judgement call. Kubr shows its assumptions and lets the user change them.
Governance signals
Would have flagged a single director behind multiple related issuers.
Can mislead when: Private companies file late, so these signals are lagging. Kubr uses them to support other flags, not to prove anything alone.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Valuation context
Offered in India- C8 Would have surfaced ASIC's 2020 proceedings over advertising.
- C9 Would have tested whether promised yields matched loan book returns.
- C11 Would have flagged a single director behind multiple related issuers.
Verified Snapshot
Offered in India- C8 Would have surfaced ASIC's 2020 proceedings over advertising.
- C11 Would have flagged a single director behind multiple related issuers.
Legal diligence support
Offered in India- C8 Would have surfaced ASIC's 2020 proceedings over advertising.
- C11 Would have flagged a single director behind multiple related issuers.
Promoter profiles
Offered in India- C8 Would have surfaced ASIC's 2020 proceedings over advertising.
- C11 Would have flagged a single director behind multiple related issuers.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.