Redhill litigation: settlement and judicial observations

analysisIn FP Redhill and related investment-vehicle litigation, MFS was the ninth defendant and Raja the tenth. Claims against them, Capstan Capital Partners and Anjaljun Holdings were settled before the trial of the remaining defendants. The settlement terms were not disclosed to the judge. ¹

qualification

Settlement terms were unknown to the court, which said the settlements had no bearing on the live claims before it.

analysisThe judgment discussed £296,400 received by MFS from Capstan Capital in May 2016 and Raja’s correspondence concerning an altered invoice. The judge concluded that the correspondence revealed an intention to create deceptive documents to justify illegitimate payments. MFS and Raja had settled and were not participating in that trial. A separate £200,000 MFS arrangement invoice was also examined. ¹

qualification

The court expressly acknowledged making necessary state-of-mind findings concerning a person absent from the trial. MFS and Raja had settled; this was not a fresh damages judgment against them. Its general description of Raja as shareholder and director does not displace the registry’s 5 July 2017 director-appointment date. Settlement terms were unknown to the court, which said the settlements had no bearing on the live claims before it.

response

MFS and Raja had settled before trial on terms unknown to the court.

outcome

Claims against MFS and Raja were settled, with terms unknown to the court.

analysisThe later administration applicants referred to earlier English court observations without naming the proceeding in that passage. Those references explain the arguments about selecting administrators. The Redhill judgment concerns a separate investment episode. ^{1 2}

qualification

The earlier proceedings are unidentified in this passage. This establishes what the applicant asserted, not a new court finding about Raja or the unnamed earlier matter. Settlement terms were unknown to the court, which said the settlements had no bearing on the live claims before it.

outcome

Claims against MFS and Raja were settled, with terms unknown to the court. The court appointed the AlixPartners administrators and refused the requested adjournment; it treated the applicant funders as contingent creditors.