Insolvency refers to a financial situation where an individual, business or entity, such as a fund, is unable to meet their financial obligations or settle their debts as they become due. In most cases, the state of insolvency occurs due to an increase in business expenses, poor cash management, law suits, poor budgeting, fraud, business expansion, a reduction in sales or an unforeseen black swan event like Covid 19. In Kenya, insolvency proceedings are primarily governed by the Insolvency Act of 2015. The act provides for how insolvent companies can be assisted to service creditors obligations and protect the interests of all stakeholders. The options available for an insolvent company include Administration, Receivership, voluntary arrangements, and liquidation. In this week’s focus, we shall look into the following;

1. Introduction,
2. Current Context and background,
3. Recent case studies,
4. Challenges affecting insolvency practice, and,
5. Recommendations and Conclusion.

Section I: Introduction

In previous Cytonn Topicals, we have extensively analysed Kenya’s insolvency and restructuring landscape, with a focus on enhancing understanding of the Insolvency Act of 2015 and its practical implications for distressed businesses. These publications have examined the definition and types of insolvency, cash flow and balance sheet insolvency, and the economic, operational, and governance factors that typically drive businesses into financial distress. They have also explored the objectives of the Insolvency Act, which seeks to facilitate the rescue of viable firms, protect creditor and investor interests, preserve jobs, and promote economic stability by encouraging business rehabilitation over liquidation. Additionally, past reports have reviewed the main restructuring options available to companies in distress, including administration, receivership, company voluntary arrangements, and liquidation, while evaluating their effectiveness in achieving business continuity. The preceding thematic reports include;

1. Real Estate Insolvency in Kenya (Cytonn Weekly #33/2025)

In this report we provided an in-depth analysis of the growing insolvency cases within Kenya’s real estate sector. We examined the structural causes such as excessive debt reliance, poor project governance, delayed off-plan sales, and macroeconomic pressures like high interest rates and inflation. The report also explored types and causes of insolvency in real estate, presented key Kenyan case studies, including Banda Homes, Mitini Scapes Development, Kings Pride Properties, and Runda Royal Limited and drew lessons from international examples such as Evergrande in China and the U.S. subprime crisis. Read the full report here.

2. Restructuring and Insolvency in Kenya (Cytonn Weekly #03/2025)

In this comprehensive report we analyzed Kenya’s insolvency landscape, focusing on the Insolvency Act of 2015 how it enables distressed companies to restructure, safeguard assets, and continue operating instead of collapsing into liquidation. It examined key indicators of corporate financial health, business restructuring mechanisms such as administration, receivership, voluntary arrangements, and liquidation, and assessed their effectiveness in practice. The report also reviewed major insolvency cases including Blueshield Insurance, Mastermind Tobacco, Kaluworks, and Mobius Motors, highlighting lessons on governance, creditor coordination, and restructuring timelines. Read the full report here

3. Administration as a Business Restructuring Option (Cytonn Weekly #37/2022)

In this report we analyzed administration as a key alternative to liquidation under the Insolvency Act, 2015. We examined how administration offers distressed companies a chance to reorganize, protect creditor interests, and maintain business continuity. Through case studies of Nakumatt Holdings, ARM Cement, and Kaluworks Limited, the publication demonstrated both the potential and challenges of administration in Kenya, highlighting issues such as delayed interventions, high administrative costs, and lack of creditor collaboration. Read the full report here

4. Debt Restructuring in Kenya (Cytonn Weekly #25/2022)

In this report we examined debt restructuring as a vital lifeline for companies facing financial distress, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. It explored the key processes, types, and practical examples of restructuring in Kenya, including debt-to-equity swaps, recapitalizations, and informal repayment agreements. Through examples such as Kenya Airways, TransCentury, and TPS Eastern Africa (Serena Hotels), the report illustrated how timely restructuring can preserve value for both creditors and shareholders. It also highlighted challenges such as high restructuring costs, protracted negotiations, and potential credit score impacts. Read the full report here

5. Business Restructuring Options under the Insolvency Act (Cytonn Topical, 2020)

In this report we explored the restructuring pathways available to struggling businesses under Kenya’s Insolvency Act, 2015 specifically administration, company voluntary arrangements, and liquidation. It illustrated how these mechanisms can help technically insolvent firms reorganize and protect stakeholder interests while avoiding liquidation. Through case studies such as Nakumatt Holdings, Athi River Mining (ARM) Cement, and Deacons East Africa PLC, the report highlighted how early intervention, professional management, and stakeholder collaboration are critical to successful recovery. Read the full report here

Section II: Current Context and Background

Building on the previous background, this topical examines the challenges facing insolvency in Kenya, highlighting why successful corporate turnarounds have historically been rare. Despite the modern framework under the Insolvency Act 2015, implementation challenges, such as delayed intervention, limited use of rescue tools like company voluntary arrangements, weak creditor coordination, and shallow turnaround expertise have hindered effective restructuring. In this report, we will present recent case studies, outline the key challenges facing insolvency, provide recommendations for more effective turnarounds, and conclude with insights on how Kenya’s insolvency regime can be strengthened. The forthcoming Court of Appeal ruling, arising from the High Court decision on Cytonn High Yields Solutions [2024] KEHC 14726 and expected on 21 November 2025, is anticipated to set an important precedent for how the Insolvency Act, 2015 is applied, particularly on the balance between business rescue and liquidation.

According to the latest statistics by the Kenya’s State Receiver’s office, the total number of petitions for liquidation of companies by courts has averaged 29 every year. Additionally, since 2015, the average annual number of companies under administration, companies under receivership, and companies under voluntary liquidation during each year is 5, 3, and 7, respectively. This situation is partly attributable to the increase in Gross non-performing loans, with the banking sector recording a 5-year CAGR growth of 13.8% to Kshs 728.5 bn in June 2025 from Kshs 382.0 bn in June 2020. Similarly, the Gross Non-Performing Loans (NPL) ratio has increased to 17.6% as of June 2025, from 16.3% in Q2’2024. Additionally, the tough business operating environment is reflected in the 4.2% decline in the average Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) to 50.4 for the year to October 2025, down from the 2019 average of 52.6 has led to a significant increase in business operating expenses, which has affected the profitability of the business. The graph below shows the trend in the number of applications for insolvency during each year:

Source: Office of the Official Receiver *data up to November 2025 

The following graph shows commercial banks’ gross non-performing loan for the past five years;

Source: CBK *data up to June 2025 

Section III: Case Studies

1. Multiple Hauliers E.A. Limited

Multiple Hauliers E.A. Limited, one of Kenya’s largest transport and logistics companies, has been undergoing a complex and protracted insolvency process that underscores the challenges facing corporate restructuring in the country. The company, which employs over 1,500 people, was placed under administration on June 7, 2021, following a liquidation petition by its creditors. The major creditors include;

Source: Cytonn Research

The table below shows the financial position of Multiple Hauliers E.A. Limited;

Source: Official Receiver

The company’s financial distress has its roots in a build-up of debt linked to aggressive expansion and falling freight margins. Following the resignation of the NCBA-appointed joint administrators in April 2024, the High Court appointed the Official Receiver, operating under the Business Registration Service, as the new administrator in September 2024. The appointment was intended to facilitate a rescue plan involving a South African investor, Amava Group Capital (Pty) Ltd, which had signed a time sheet with the company to inject USD 8.5 mn to help stabilize operations and repay creditors.

The court directed the Official Receiver to oversee the completion of the investment deal and ensure a smooth transition to the new investor by December 2024. It further required periodic progress reports every sixty days, noting that the proposed investment was in the best interest of all creditors. The court also suspended ongoing suits against the company to prevent asset dismemberment and to allow the restructuring process to proceed in an orderly manner.

In February 2025, the High Court extended the administration period by another six months, emphasizing that the ongoing suits filed by individual creditors, including Prime Bank, would jeopardize the collective restructuring efforts. The court underscored that allowing creditors to act independently would result in a chaotic sale of assets and substantial losses for all parties. The court, therefore, directed that the Official Receiver continue overseeing the company’s affairs under Section 594(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act. It also issued injunctive relief barring KCB Bank, Co-operative Bank, and other secured creditors from auctioning company assets pending the completion of the Amava transaction, although this injunction was limited to the six-month extension period.

However, the rescue process was realigned when the Court of Appeal suspended the appointment of the Official Receiver and all associated High Court orders, following NCBA Bank’s application. The court held that the appointment had not adhered to the procedural requirements of the Insolvency Act and that NCBA’s statutory right to appoint administrators had been disregarded. It further upheld the bank’s position that, because the Official Receiver’s mandate was confined primarily to the Amava investment issue, the company’s remaining assets were left unprotected and susceptible to dissipation under the control of the directors.

In granting the stay orders, a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal agreed that NCBA’s right to recover its Kshs 7.2 bn debt was potentially at risk. The court observed that the validity of the Official Receiver’s appointment without a formal application was an arguable legal issue and that proceeding with the administration could cause irreparable harm to NCBA if the appeal succeeded. The stay order effectively froze the restructuring process and placed the fate of the company’s rescue in uncertainty.

2. Labh Singh Harnam Singh Limited (LSHS),

Labh Singh Harnam Singh Limited (LSHS), Kenya’s oldest and one of the largest truck, coach, and bus body builders, was placed under administration on February 4, 2025, after failing to service a Kshs 1.1 bn loan owed to KCB Group. The High Court appointed Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao Ponangipalli as joint administrators to take over the management of the company’s affairs, in line with the provisions of the Insolvency Act. The appointment effectively suspended the powers of the company’s directors and imposed a moratorium on all legal proceedings against the firm, offering it temporary relief as efforts to restructure or sell its assets commenced.

The administrators’ notice indicated that all claims against LSHS had to be submitted by creditors by March 15, 2025, and emphasized that they were acting as agents of the company without personal liability. The administrators assumed control of all assets and undertakings of the company, with the mandate to either rescue the business and return it to profitability or to realize the assets for the benefit of creditors.

Six months into the administration, efforts to revive LSHS stalled and on August 26, 2025, Phillips International Auctioneers, acting on behalf of the joint administrators and chargees, invited sealed bids for the sale of LSHS’s property, plant, and machinery to recover the KCB loan. The assets on offer included the company’s 5-acre industrial property in Syokimau, Machakos County, equipped with interconnected godowns, a factory for the fabrication and repair of buses and commercial vehicles, office blocks, and auxiliary outbuildings. The factory is fully fitted with machinery for producing and repairing tankers, flatbeds, tippers, rigid containers, and side loaders, and is connected to electricity with water sourced from rain harvesting and external bowsers.

3. Put Sarajevo General Engineering Company Limited,

Put Sarajevo General Engineering Company Limited, once a dominant force in Kenya’s road construction sector during the 1980s and 1990s, was placed under liquidation after failing to settle debts amounting to Kshs 800.0 mn owed to three creditors, Hamilton Harrison & Mathews (HHM) Advocates, Arrow Cars Limited and the National Bank of Kenya (NBK). The High Court declared the company insolvent and ordered its liquidation under Section 424(1)(e) of the Insolvency Act, citing overwhelming evidence that the firm was unable to pay its debts.

HHM Advocates initiated the liquidation proceedings in June 2020, claiming Kshs 5.8 mn in unpaid legal fees. Despite being served with a statutory demand, Put Sarajevo did not settle the debt or respond substantively to the petition. As the case progressed, two more creditors; Arrow Cars Limited and NBK, were enjoined in the matter. Arrow Cars claimed Kshs 4.8 mn arising from a commercial dispute over unpaid supplies of tyres, while NBK’s claim stood at a staggering Kshs 876.0 mn. The bank’s exposure stemmed from a range of facilities extended to the company, including overdrafts, asset financing, bonds, and guarantees to support infrastructure projects with the Kenya Rural Roads Authority (KeRRA) and the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA).

The court held that the petitioner and the additional creditors had demonstrated beyond doubt that the company was unable to meet its financial obligations. The court appointed the Official Receiver, or a nominee thereof, as the liquidator to oversee the sale of the company’s assets and distribution of proceeds to creditors. In its ruling the court referenced Section 384 of the Insolvency Act, which outlines the conditions under which a company is deemed unable to pay its debts, including failure to comply with a statutory demand exceeding Kshs 100,000 within 21 days or where its liabilities surpass its assets. The court observed that Put Sarajevo had made no attempt to settle or negotiate its debts despite being afforded sufficient time.

4. East African Cables

East African Cables (EAC) is one of Kenya’s oldest manufacturers of electrical cables, with an operational history that spans several decades and a market footprint that extends across East and Central Africa. The company produces a wide range of cables used in construction, power distribution, telecommunications, and industrial applications, positioning it as a critical supplier in the region’s infrastructure value chain. For years, the firm leveraged its strong brand recognition, extensive distribution channels, and regional presence to grow its business. However, its fortunes deteriorated significantly alongside those of its parent company, TransCentury Plc, as both entities became weighed down by excessive leverage, costly debt restructuring attempts, and persistent liquidity constraints.

EAC’s downward spiral became irreversible when it defaulted on a Kshs 2.2 bn loan owed to Equity Bank. These obligations were secured by four prime Nairobi properties, LR. No. 209/4235, LR. No. 209/8176, LR. No. 209/6982/1 and LR. No. 209/6982/2, used as collateral for facilities issued to both East African Cables and TransCentury. As cash flows tightened and restructuring negotiations faltered, Equity issued statutory notices in November 2024 demanding full repayment of the indebtedness, signalling the beginning of an aggressive recovery effort.

EAC challenged the notices in the High Court, arguing that they were procedurally defective, but the court dismissed the application. The company then escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, hoping to secure interim relief that would stop the bank from exercising its statutory power of sale. However, in May 2025, the Court of Appeal declined to restrain Equity Bank, holding that while the appeal was arguable, the bank, being a tier-1 financial institution, had the capacity to compensate the firm should the appeal later succeed. This ruling effectively opened the door for Equity to proceed with the disposal of the secured properties once temporary protections lapsed.

In the meantime, EAC secured a 90-day reprieve from the High Court in an earlier ruling. The court instructed the firm to continue servicing the debt while seeking alternative financing. During this period, EAC and TransCentury made efforts to secure new capital, including engaging TLG Africa Growth Impact Fund Corporate Management Solutions (Cayman) Limited, which expressed interest in financing the outstanding debt. The companies tabled a non-binding term sheet for an USD 8.0 mn facility, and further correspondence indicated that TLG was collaborating with Kuramo Capital to put together a broader refinancing package. Despite these efforts, the process stalled due to the complexity of the transaction, the large capital outlay involved. As a result, the firm failed to meet the timelines stipulated by the court.

With refinancing attempts faltering and court protections weakening, Equity Bank moved to the next phase of recovery by appointing administrators to take control of EAC and its parent company. In June 2025, Muniu Thoithi, one of the appointed administrators from PwC, attempted to take over the company’s operations. TransCentury, however, physically blocked the takeover by locking out the administrators from the company’s Lavington premises, escalating tensions between the lender, the appointed administrators, and the corporate leadership of the indebted group.

By July 2025, the insolvency process shifted significantly when the PwC-appointed joint administrators, George Weru and Muniu Thoithi, formally opened a structured transaction window aimed at rescuing the business. Through a public notice, they invited both financial and strategic investors to submit proposals for recapitalising the company, refinancing its debt, or acquiring its assets. In line with the Insolvency Act 2015, the administrators emphasised that the principal goal of administration was to rescue the company as a going concern or to achieve a better outcome for creditors than would be realised in liquidation. They signalled flexibility in transaction structures, noting that any credible proposal capable of stabilising the company’s financial position would be considered.

5. TransCentury Plc

TransCentury Plc was once one of Kenya’s most prominent investment holding companies, celebrated for its bold strategy of acquiring and scaling infrastructure-related businesses across East Africa. Established in 1997, the firm sought to be a vehicle for regional growth, channelling local capital into strategic sectors such as energy, engineering, transport, and manufacturing.

During its early years, TransCentury built a reputation as a deal-making powerhouse. By 2007, it had acquired controlling stakes in East African Cables (EAC), ABB Tanelec Limited in Tanzania, and Kewberg Cables & Braids in South Africa, positioning itself as a key player in Africa’s growing industrial and infrastructure space. Its investments were buoyed by a favourable macroeconomic climate in the mid-2000s and strong connections to policymakers, which helped it secure opportunities in the electricity and transport sectors, including the establishment of Simba Energy to participate in Kenya’s nascent independent power generation market.

In 2011, seeking to diversify its funding base, TransCentury listed by introduction on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE). The listing gave it access to public capital markets, but the company increasingly relied on debt to fuel growth. This aggressive leverage strategy soon became its undoing. Several of its subsidiaries, including East African Cables, began experiencing operational and financial challenges, weighed down by rising finance costs and shrinking margins.

TransCentury’s debt spiral began with the issuance of a Kshs 6.7 bn convertible bond in Mauritius shortly before its listing on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE). By the time the bond matured in March 2016, a weaker shilling and accrued interest had ballooned the liability to Kshs 8.0 bn. TransCentury argued that it had made “significant progress” in its debt restructuring plan, which included a proposed sale of 51.0% in EA Cables (Tanzania) to Msufini Ltd. .

Kuramo Capital’s initial injection of Kshs 2.0 billion in 2016 was used to partially redeem the Mauritius-issued convertible bond, following a negotiated haircut by bondholders. However, the balance was restructured repeatedly over the years, and by June 2025, over Kshs 1.0 billion remained outstanding, just days before Equity Bank moved to enforce its security. Notably, TransCentury’s financial position remains deeply distressed, with total liabilities exceeding assets by Kshs 12.9 billion, underscoring the severity of the company’s insolvency. A breakdown of assets and liabilities is provided in the table below.

Source: TransCentury 2024 financials

Summary of Various Recent Insolvencies:

The table below shows a summary table of various recent insolvencies in Kenya;

Source: Cytonn Research

Below is a list of recently announced insolvencies;

Source: Kenya Gazette, Various issues

Section IV: Challenges facing insolvency practice

Insolvency practice in Kenya has evolved significantly with the enactment of the Insolvency Act, 2015. This legislation was intended to streamline insolvency processes and offer a more structured framework for handling financial distress in both corporate and personal contexts. However, practitioners and stakeholders continue to grapple with a variety of challenges that hinder the effective realization of the Act's objectives. Below are some of the key challenges facing insolvency practice:

1. Corruption – Insolvency is seen as an avenue to dismantle companies and sell their assets for cheap, usually to pre-identified individuals rather than an avenue to resuscitate struggling businesses as was the original statutory intent.
2. Poor track record- The greatest challenge facing insolvency in Kenya today is its poor track record, with no notable examples of successful restructuring. The Insolvency Act was intended to deliver better outcomes for creditors and stakeholders by preserving value, safeguarding jobs, and maintaining the tax base. However, the insolvency framework has largely functioned as a process for orderly winddowns or bankruptcies. While the current regime ensures a more organized process compared to the previous system, the anticipated benefits of business survival and continuity have yet to materialize,
3. Lengthy and costly processes-The insolvency process in Kenya is often characterized by delays and high costs. Court processes, which form a significant part of insolvency proceedings, are typically slow due to backlog and procedural complexities. Additionally, insolvency process often involves engaging professionals such as lawyers and accountants, whose fees can be substantial. These costs, which are given first claim during asset realization, can significantly reduce the value available for creditors. For example, the administration cost of ARM Cement incurred a total of Kshs 2.5 billion which was too high considering it was over 40.3% of the total amount recovered. Keeping administration costs low ensures creditors recover meaningful amounts and aligns service providers with the interests of creditors,
4. Liquidation being most popular option- Many creditors, regulators, and businesses lack sufficient knowledge about administration, leading to hesitation in accepting it as a viable restructuring option. In contrast, liquidation is often preferred because of its simplicity, providing a clear and definitive process for realizing and distributing value. This straightforwardness appeals to creditors, suppliers, and stakeholders. Additionally, liquidation is typically faster than other restructuring methods, making it more attractive to creditors. For instance, the administration of ARM Cement, which began in 2018 and concluded in 2022, almost 5 years, benefiting service providers rather than creditors. Accelerating the administration process would ensure better outcomes for creditors,
5. Weak corporate governance and financial reporting- Poor corporate governance and inadequate financial reporting are common issues in Kenya. These problems often come to light during insolvency proceedings, complicating the efforts of administrators or liquidators to assess the true financial position of a distressed entity. The case of Chase Bank Kenya revealed significant gaps in governance and accounting practices, for example, two differing FY’2015 statements were released. The bank’s initial FY’2015 statements showed that Chase Bank had loaned out a total of Kshs 5.7 bn to employees, directors and shareholders while the restated statements indicated the insider loan amounts were Kshs 13.6 bn, Kshs 7.9 bn higher than the previously published statements,
6. Managing stakeholders interests – Insolvency practitioners need to manage the task of balancing the interests of diverse stakeholders, including creditors, shareholders, employees, and regulators. These conflicting interests can complicate decision-making and negotiations. For example, in Nakumatt case, retail creditors holding commercial paper resisted collaboration with the administrator, demanding either full repayment or liquidation. This approach resulted in a total loss for the creditors, whereas an equity restructuring could have preserved value, now being capitalized on by competitors like Carrefour,
7. Lack of good will from companies in distress –Transparent and accurate information is essential for informed decision-making and effective strategy development. However, insolvency practitioners often report a lack of cooperation from distressed companies in sharing critical information. This hinders practitioners' ability to fully understand the company’s financial situation, leading to potentially flawed decisions. Additionally, the Office of the Official Receiver has observed an increase in cases where company owners secure court injunctions to delay proceedings, using the time to strip company assets while litigation drags on,
8. Negative publicity around administration-Administration, particularly when not fully understood by all stakeholders, can jeopardize business continuity. The process often generates negative publicity and uncertainty, which can significantly harm the business and potentially lead to its total collapse, and,
9. Complexity of cases - Insolvency cases are often highly complex, involving numerous stakeholders, intricate financial arrangements, and a range of legal and operational challenges. Successfully managing these complexities demands significant expertise and experience. Moreover, insolvency practitioners must manage large volumes of information, which can be time-consuming and potentially delay progress toward their objectives.

Section V: Recommendations and Conclusion

Improving insolvency practice involves addressing various aspects of the process to enhance efficiency, transparency, stakeholder cooperation, and overall effectiveness. These include:

1. Effective Oversight: Parliament should play a more effective oversight role. It’s now 10 years of the Insolvency Act 2015 without anything concrete to show in terms of realizing the statutory intent of the legislation. Parliament should review the 10-year track record versus the statutory intent.
2. Early Intervention: Taking timely action to address financial distress can lead to more viable and cost-effective solutions. Proactive measures might prevent the situation from deteriorating further and becoming more complex.
3. Need for a Success Story to Change the Narrative: The industry urgently requires a success story to counter the negative perception of insolvency professionals as "business undertakers" and highlight their role in fostering business recovery and continuity.
4. Transparent Communication: Clear and open communication among stakeholders and insolvency professionals helps streamline processes and avoids misunderstandings that could lead to additional costs.
5. Encourage Out-of-Court Settlements: Establishing mechanisms to promote mediation and out-of-court agreements between creditors and debtors can significantly reduce the time and cost associated with formal restructuring processes.
6. Efficient Asset Realization: Developing a well-planned strategy for selling assets ensures maximum returns and minimizes associated costs. Streamlined marketing and sales processes reduce unnecessary expenses.
7. Incorporating Debt-to-Equity Swaps: Promoting the use of debt-to-equity swaps for companies with strong recovery potential can be highly effective. Businesses with solid market positions, promising revenue streams, or strategic assets can benefit from this approach. Creditors, in turn, gain a stake in the company’s future success, incentivizing their support for turnaround efforts.
8. Appropriate Professional Selection: Selecting experienced and reputable insolvency professionals with relevant expertise in restructuring ensures high-quality service delivery while managing costs effectively.
9. Streamline Regulatory Frameworks: Governments and regulatory bodies should focus on creating clear and consistent insolvency regulations that facilitate efficient processes, protect creditors, and ensure fair treatment of stakeholders.

The Insolvency Act of 2015 aims to establish a robust and effective insolvency framework in Kenya, fostering a conducive business environment and safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders involved in the insolvency process. By restructuring debts, reducing financial pressures, and maintaining business continuity, the Act provides mechanisms to help businesses recover. However, the success of any restructuring process depends on the company’s ability to adhere to repayment plans, secure creditor support, and implement restructuring strategies effectively.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the writers where particulars are not warranted. This publication, which is in compliance with Section 2 of the Capital Markets Authority Act Cap 485A, is meant for general information only and is not a warranty, representation, advice or solicitation of any nature. Readers are advised in all circumstances to seek the advice of a registered investment advisor