Breach of Agreement Case:

XL Results Foundation Pte Ltd vs Linda Ruck



This site provides a summary of the case between XL Results Foundation (“XL”) and Linda Ruck (“LR”), together with XL’s responses to various claims regarding, including claims made by LR against, XL. This summary is provided by the Management of XL.

Posted on 8th November 2006. Updated on 5th November 2007.

 

CONTENTS

1. Purpose of this Site
2. Background of XL vs Linda Ruck
3. Linda Ruck’s Claims and Our Responses
4. History of the Legal Case


1. Purpose of this site

This site is for any individual who has received emails or phone calls aimed to damage our reputation or the reputation of Roger Hamilton, and related to the claims below. We have decided to post this site following an apparent ongoing campaign of calls, blogs and emails against the company, which have now lasted over 20 months, to direct recipients of such claims to the proper facts.

 

2. Background of XL vs LR

LR was an employee of XL Results Foundation from April 2002 to March 2005. She was in a relationship with Roger Hamilton until late 2004. After this relationship ended, Roger reconciled with his wife and LR agreed to leave the company in January 2005. Matters then deteriorated and LR was escorted from the office premises in March 2005 by the police in disruptive circumstances. Since leaving the company, she has made multiple defamatory, false and/or inaccurate claims against XL and Roger, which subsequently led to legal actions.

It has also come to our knowledge that various bogus Yahoo and Gmail emails have been circulated to our members repeating the same and/or similar claims as those previously made by LR. At the time of posting, we are aware of several thousand emails sent from over thirty different bogus addresses over a period of 21/2 years. These bogus emails are designed to appear as emails sent either from consumer associations, press bureaus, the media, or our own partners, customers or members. Bogus blogs have also been posted with the same content on Blogger, Wordpress and more recently www.ripoffreport.com and similar emails and blogs have been targeted at the media. We have posted a separate media advisory relating to this at: www.resultsfoundation.com/mediaadvisory1

The addresses include: consumer.association@googlemail.com, scamalertconsumer@gmail.com, xlcomplaints@gmail.com, press_services@yahoo.com; hub_media@yahoo.com; Roger.Hamilton_exposed@yahoo.com; members_xl@yahoo.com; xl_members@yahoo.com; bangkok_members@yahoo.com; hongkong_members@yahoo.com; xlmembers_hongkong@yahoo.com; alex_l_low@yahoo.com; jamestan_singapore2@yahoo.com.sg; davidlusingapore@yahoo.com.sg; yap80_anthony@yahoo.com; jones_peter04@yahoo.com.sg; davidlee_sing@yahoo.com; davidtan_sing@yahoo.com; frankiecinhongkong@yahoo.com; vinnyhudson@yahoo.com; stjames_susan@yahoo.com.sg; david.woodwood@yahoo.com; andrewtan_tanandrew@yahoo.com.sg; boonmee_bangkokg@yahoo.com; peters_dave60@yahoo.com.au; leerichard_rl@yahoo.com.sg; gopi_reza@yahoo.com; mark_slater62@yahoo.co.nz. New emails continue to be generated with the same content, recycled in different forms, on a regular basis.

In addition, three police reports have been lodged against LR, for trespass, defamation and theft. Following the third report for theft of the company computer, LR returned the computer from which defamatory emails purportedly sent by LR were recovered by computer forensics. These emails were filed in court as part of the legal case against LR. The suit was subsequently settled in April 2006 when LR signed a full retraction of the defamatory, false and/or inaccurate claims she had made and undertaking not to contact our stakeholders in the future.

Despite the undertaking, LR continued to contact our stakeholders, including XL Life Members, Country Partners and Partners. Three of these phone calls were recorded in June and July 2006 and contained the same and/or similar defamatory claims. We provided LR with the opportunity to focus her efforts elsewhere but when, in October 2006 LR’s defamatory activity continued to increase, we took the breach of agreement case back to court. At present the case is in process.

 

3. Linda’s Claims and Our Responsess

Below are our responses to the claims that LR has made, most recently in a series of telephone conversations with two of our licensees in June and July 2006.

The claims below are quotations taken verbatim from the phone calls::

1.

CHARITY DONATIONS:
LR CLAIM: “It’s all bullshit. Roger hasn’t given any money…. Money was promised to charity, and it was never given ….We always promised that ten percent of charity, ten percent of all the Life Membership funds would go to charity.”
 
XL RESPONSE: XL Results Foundation operates as a Social Enterprise as part of the XL Social Enterprise Accreditation Program and gives over 10% of profits to charity. A full schedule of charity activities and donations made is available here. Roger’s definition of a Social Enterprise is available here, and the XL2020 describes in detail our commitment and vision for social entrepreneurship and World Wide Wealth here.
 

2.

CRIMINAL ACTIVITY:
LR CLAIM: “Roger and the company are under Criminal Investigation.…. Its’ completely out of everyone’s hands now. This, this has gone to the fraud squad and it’s a government department. There’s only six investigators in this squad, and if they look at you, or a company, you’re in absolute, deep shit….”
 
“It’s going to hit the fan, if there’s a, if, um, Commercial Affairs Department gets four serious complaints about a company doing business in Singapore, they’d look into it and it’d take them up to a year to investigate and it would take a year for them, unless you know, someone’s been killed, that it would take a year for them to come to your door. And I believe they’ve come to Roger’s office in the last two months and taken files out…. If you got CAD coming to your office taking away files I mean you should run for the hills.”
 
XL RESPONSE: XL and Roger Hamilton have not been under Criminal Investigation and CAD has never visited the company’s office. Following claims by a bogus Yahoo Email that CAD was investigating us in April 2005, CAD supported us in an email to members in April 2005 denying this. Linda claimed in phone conversations that she had visited CAD herself in relation to XL and an email recovered from her company computer encouraged a Life Member to make a complaint to CAD.
 

3.

MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS:
LR CLAIM: “He said ‘the money’s gone’. It’s been siphoned out of the country. I think it’s off shore in an off shore bank account. It’s certainly not in Singapore. No one can claim it. It’s, it’s gone - unless the government intervene…. It’s, um, he’s got massive debts, I’m not sure whether he’s paying someone off to keep them quiet, I don’t know. But he’s not, he doesn’t have the money.”
 
“That’s why we’re not going to hit him with the defamation suit, because my lawyer says he’s got no money…. I don’t know where the money’s gone... I often would ask him.... and I think it’s just been siphoned out of Singapore…. I saw the accounts before I had left and the company was in debt two hundred and fifty thousand dollars…”
 
XL RESPONSE: No money from XL has ever been ‘siphoned out of Singapore’. Our last three years’ accounts are open for public view. The company accounts have never been in debt by $250,000 or otherwise. Every year the company has been profitable and with a positive net value, which amounted to $1,141,119 in May 2006. All profits since the company was founded have been retained in the company.
 

4.

COMMUNITY PETITION
LR Claim: “There’s a community petition in the , in the market, in Singapore and the region, it’s being consoli, consolidated by an independent media representative, her name is Ann Phua…. So she’s got fifty complaints and there’s probably two hundred that’s been launched…. Community based petition alleging fraud about the director who runs it, Roger Hamilton…Charity fraud, fraud of changing the company name when there were shares in the company, and misrepresentation to the consumer, serious allegations….
 
There are a lot of people who have taken legal action against Roger. There is a community petition. Now, that is not the work of one individual. It’s a lot of pissed off people…. It’s like a template, and I did not write it, I swear on a stack of Bibles, I did not write it.”
 
XL RESPONSE: A series of bogus yahoo emails sent to Life Members over a six month period claimed a community petition against XL. These included an “official complaint” template, which was subsequently found to be in a word document purportedly authored by LR. Ann Phua is a contact of LR. She is not a Life Member and has never been to an XL event. XL Management met with Ann Phua and said that if she had any legitimate complaints we would be happy to address them. Ann Phua eventually presented XL with names of Life Members in November who were seeking to transfer their membership and XL is now facilitating those transfers as we will for any Life Members. The various allegations of fraud, which is a criminal offence, are entirely baseless and have not been supported by any of our Members.

We take great pride in the service we provide, and if any genuine complaints were to arise, which every company would expect from time to time, we would be the first to address them.
 

5.

ALLEGED HISTORY OF LITIGATION
LR CLAIM: “He had investors who were trying to bankrupt him by taking him through the court system so he had to raise cash very quickly… Any Life Member can take legal action. He just sells in Australia and New Zealand, he’s got a cash cow, it pays for all the legal fees to wipe out everyone. People cannot stand up to him financially…. I also want to protect the Australian community and, um, that’s why Roger has kept me in litigation for a year and a half so I haven’t been able to speak…. Roger doesn’t know what the truth is anyway. He, he can blatantly lie, look at people in the eye and blatantly lie. And that’s the most disturbing thing, and you know, that’s obviously why we have a harassment case against him.”
 
XL RESPONSE: We have never been involved in any court case with any investors or Life Members in our history. XL did not keep LR in litigation. On the contrary, it was LR who began the litigation. We offered the opportunity to settle at any time by simply signing a retraction, and LR’s refusal to do so prolonged the litigation by nine months. In addition, there is no ‘harassment case’ against Roger as LR claims.
 

6.

FALSE POLICE REPORTS
LR CLAIMS: “Any man or any business man that files four police reports against a business person in the community and an ex-staff member and an ex-woman that he’s been involved with, when that comes out, that will be absolutely explosive… I had five, five false police reports filed, filed against me. All because I said the money should go to charity.”
 
XL RESPONSE: We issued three police reports against LR in March and April 2005. The first was for criminal trespass, submitted by Dave Rogers on the recommendation of the police after LR entered the company office (without permission) one day after being escorted out by the police and warned not to return without permission. The second was for defamation, submitted by Roger and recommended by the CAD to pave the way for a court order to Yahoo for the bogus email sent claiming CAD was investigating XL. The third was for theft after LR refused to return the company computer after a series of warnings and a final warning from our lawyers. On the computer’s return, it was not operational and was sent to computer forensics, who recovered defamatory emails subsequently presented in court. None of the three reports were false, and none had anything to do with money or charities.
 

7.

FINANCIALLY WIPED OUT LICENSEES
LR CLAIM: “Around ten licensees have been financially wiped out. All the other licensees apart from the New Zealand and Australia team, everyone got financially wiped out…. There are dozens of franchisees who've been basically wiped out financially… Ah, yeah, they get wiped out. All the licenses have gotten wiped out…. He’s wiped out all the markets, he cannot get licensees anywhere in Asia. He cannot sell his license. And none of them exist.”
 
XL RESPONSE: We currently have thirteen country licensees operating in thirty cities in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, China, India, Dubai, United Kingdom, Mexico and United States. While four of the first operational license teams chose not to continue in the first two years these territories were taken by subsequent teams, and contrary to LR’s claims all current teams are enjoying growth in their countries. We continue to open in new countries and cities, and continue to receive requests for new licenses, most recently for Japan, Taiwan, Korea, France, Spain and Holland. XL continues to double in size each year as a result of the efforts of our licensees.
 

8.

NON PAYMENT OF STAFF
LR CLAIM: “When I came into the company it was ‘Roger pay the bills, pay the vendors, pay the staff. He’s had 100% staff turnover. He’s screwed the staff down. Around ten staff didn’t get paid when they left. And I said ‘Roger, pay the staff. This is wrong’. The only person who got paid was the accountant.”
 
XL RESPONSE: There has never been any staff of XL who has not been paid in full. Even in the case of LR, we were happy to pay the final $10,000 of her settlement when she finally signed the retraction.
 

9.

OUR BEHAVIOUR TO LIFE MEMBERS
LR CLAIM: “Life Members, even to last month, have actually asked for proof of donations, amounts, where they’ve been donated, phone numbers, and none of them have got them… members could never get what they wanted from Roger, whether they wanted to know where their funds were, if their funds were protected, where the money had gone to charity, when some of them started legal action. They were wiped out…. I believe at least twenty life members have been paid off… basically to go away. Pay them off to go away, not to not to speak out about the company and to go, he hasn't paid off any women which is very interesting but he's paid off Italians, Indians.”
 
XL RESPONSE: In any event where Life Members have requested for any information, we are the first to give it. No Life Members have been ‘wiped out’ or ‘paid off’.
 

10.

ROGER’S CHARACTER
LR CLAIM: “I called him a liar, and a cheat, and a con man and I said he deceived me, and members, and he was only doing it to steal people’s money, he didn’t give a shit about members, he didn’t give a shit about licensees, he didn’t care about his family, you know everything just came out when you have resented someone for a long, long time…. I said ‘Roger, be true to yourself. Be what you are. You are a very ruthless and shrewd business man. And that’s not a problem, but be that. Don’t be anything that you’re not because you cannot sustain it. You cannot get up and say you’re a philanthropist, and you care about children and animals ‘cause basically you don’t give a fuck.”
 
XL RESPONSE: Roger is the co-founder of our company, and has received many testimonials for the good work that he does. These comments never happened, and LR’s comments to Roger at the time of her departure were quite different.
 

11.

ROGER’S APPARENT AGENDA TO DESTROY LINDA
LR CLAIM: “I’ve had to keep a very low profile because Roger is out to break me and he has to break me. He has to destroy me because if I go, if I come forward at some stage, which I certainly will, and I say to like the Sydney Morning Herald or Australian’s Woman’s Day I was involved with this man, we built up this company, I believed in philanthropy, in giving, and when I questioned him, you know I was physically removed from the office, I had four false police reports against me, he’s terrorized me over a year and a half, he’s slurred my character from New Zealand to the United Kingdom, it’s going to blow people away…. I’d much appreciate it if you don’t mention me because I’m just hammered to the point of bankruptcy because Roger’s got to destroy me.”
 
XL RESPONSE: Roger has no interest in destroying LR, and has never discussed LR and her activities unless in response to those affected by her activities. We would all prefer to focus on the growth of XL than on this matter. We all wish LR the best in moving forward and while this site has been posted to provide concerned individuals with the facts of the case, it will be removed once LR chooses to stop her activities against the company such that there is no further need for it.
 

12.

FUTURE THREATS
LR CLAIM: “The media, ah, there are two journalists at the moment. One who has recently finished writing about a massive charity fraud in Singapore, the National Kidney Foundation, so there’s two journalists who are actually on it. And he will be exposed. There’s absolutely no doubt it about it. It’s just a matter of when…. I have a strategy that, that, I would really like to get to the press in Queensland, that’s my last resort. And then sending them a copy of the petition.
 
“You're much better off then the people in Dubai or India. Can you imagine what would happen to them, they'd probably be killed. This is Asia, you screw someone over for a thousand dollars, they're going to come after you. You might just get screwed tonight in your office and you know that's, you know, that's unfortunate but that's basically it…. Asian’s have been very direct with me, I’ve met them walking up the street and they’ve said ‘Linda, you’re taking this guy on toe-to-toe. We do not operate that way. When we hit Roger from the side, he will never get up again.”
 
XL RESPONSE: From LR’s comments, her intent is to continue with this activity. We welcome any one who has been exposed to these comments to take them in context. We are also happy to speak to any concerned parties, whether the press, organizations or members of the public and provide further information or reassurances if necessary.
 

13.

DENIAL OF HER RETRACTION
LR CLAIM: “I did not retract my affidavit. I retracted, I said that I did break confidentiality, I spoke to a few people and what is confidentiality, saying that the charity didn’t exist?... I do not retract that no money went to charity and the members are misrepresented and I do not retract that Roger is a dishonourable person, and has, does not honor his word. I don't retract that in the least. I just feel I don't retract anything…. I do have documents but obviously I'm not going to send them to you, I have to be careful, cause I don't want a paper trial to me and one of the clauses is I'm not even supposed to be speaking to you, which I, to be frank, I don't really care about.”
 
XL RESPONSE: LR’s comments are a contradiction to both the letter and spirit of the retraction she signed. This matter is now in the Courts, and we shall keep you updated on the progress of our claim against LR for breach of the Settlement Agreement entered into between XL and LR.


4. History of the Legal Case

All legal documents linked to below are a matter of public record and lodged with the Subordinate Courts of the Republic of Singapore.

1. On 1st Feb 2005, a Severance Agreement was signed between XL and LR. This agreement included clause 8: “CONFIDENTIALITY: From this day onwards both you and Roger Hamilton agree to keep the conditions of this agreement, your history within the company and all information related to your history, including financial details and company information confidential. You and Roger Hamilton also agree not to discuss or disclose any information which could be deemed detrimental, negative or harmful to the other party.”
2. Between February 2005 and April 2005, we issued a number of warnings to LR for breach of this clause. On May 31, XL withheld LR’s final payment as a result of continued breaches.
3. In June 2005, LR submitted a claim for breach of contract for S$10,000.
4. In June 2005, we submitted a counter claim for breach of contract for S$50,000.
5. In August 2005, LR submitted her first affidavit on the case, focused at how we had breached contract by canceling an issued cheque for S$10,000.
6. In September 2005, Roger submitted his first affidavit on the case, focused at how LR had breached contract and her disruptive behaviour.
7. In September 2005, LR submitted her second affidavit on the case, introducing various new allegations against Roger and XL.
8. In November 2005, Roger submitted his second affidavit on the case, with documentation disputing the various allegations by LR.
9. In November 2005, Roger submitted his third affidavit on the case, introducing the various emails recovered from LR’s company computer.
10. Between October 2005 and March 2006, LR’s lawyers made a total of five offers of settlement. Each time, our lawyers replied that we would settle only on the basis that LR signs a full retraction of her baseless, false and/or inaccurate allegations and an undertaking not to contact our partners and members further.
11. On April 2006, after our lawyers served on LR a list of interrogatories requiring LR to state on oath her position and/or to provide answers to a series of questions which may be relied on in Court at the trial of the action, LR signed the retraction. As a result, the claim and counter claim were withdrawn.
12. In October 2006, we sent LR a writ of summons for continuing to breach the settlement agreement.
13. In January 2006, after LR began to represent herself, she took out a separate criminal case against Roger for defamation. This was later withdrawn by her.
14. In March 2007, following the appointment of a new lawyer, LR submitted a new affidavit introducing the defense that XL may be an illegal pyramid sales company, thus making a breach of contract by her legally permitted.
15. In April 2007, LR submitted interrogatories requesting detailed financial information from XL, on the basis that this would prove the claim in her affidavit regarding XL’s illegality.
16. In July 2007, Roger submitted an affidavit requesting withdrawal of LR’s interrogatories on the basis that XL was not a pyramid sales company and LR had ulterior motives for filing, together with documentation of the emails sent out by her and by anonymous / bogus emails.
17. In August 2007, the court ordered in XL’s favour and LR’s interrogatories were withdrawn.
18. The case is currently in process. When LR repays the company’s money of S$50,000 paid to her in the breached settlement, we will donate the money to charity.


To read the latest comment from XL to our Life Members on this matter, see here.

For further information or clarification please email XL Management: members@resultsfoundation.com

XL Results Foundation, 30 Robinson Road, #11-01 Robinson Towers, Singapore 048546

For more positive news on XL and the world around us, visit www.resultsfoundation.com