Executive Summary
- The case concerns Regera SARL’s claim against Phillip Ean Cohen and Maria Therese Valmorbida (First and Second Defendants) as guarantors under a US$33.41 million Facility Agreement dated 14 June 2021.
- The Borrower, son of the Second Defendant, defaulted on the loan; the Claimant pursued guarantees after a settlement with the Borrower failed.
- Defendants challenge service validity via Law Debenture and seek to set aside default judgments entered due to non-response.
- Key disputes include the validity of personal guarantees, alleged undue pressure during signing, and procedural fairness under CPR rules 13.2 and 13.3.
- Judgment focuses on enforceability, notification sufficiency, and whether Defendants have a real prospect of defense.
Sanctions Highlights
- The Facility Agreement and related proceedings implicate sanctions considerations due to parties’ international ties and financial transactions.
- Defendants’ residences span the US (Miami Beach, New York) and Australia; the Claimant is UK-based.
- The loan and guarantees involve US dollar sums, raising potential BIS (US Bureau of Industry and Security) and UK sanctions compliance issues.
- No explicit sanctions breaches are alleged, but the involvement of multiple jurisdictions (UK, US, Australia) necessitates scrutiny of cross-border sanctions risks.
Emerging Risks
- Procedural risks from disputed service of process on Law Debenture may delay enforcement and increase litigation costs.
- Allegations of coercion and signing under pressure expose the Claimant to potential challenges on contract validity.
- The Borrower’s prior dishonesty finding by the Jersey Court (2022) adds reputational risk and may affect asset recovery.
- Complex multi-jurisdictional enforcement and potential consumer credit law defenses increase litigation uncertainty.
Geopolitical Impact
- Parties’ connections to the UK, US, Australia, and indirectly to jurisdictions like Jersey highlight transatlantic legal interplay.
- The case underscores the UK’s role in adjudicating international commercial disputes involving US dollar financing and cross-border guarantees.
- Potential geopolitical sensitivities arise from the Borrower’s art dealings and intellectual property pledges, sectors often scrutinized for sanctions compliance.
- No direct involvement of India, Iran, Pakistan, or Venezuela in the case facts, but sanctions regimes involving these countries may inform broader compliance frameworks.
Economic Intelligence
- The US$33.41 million loan facility and US$2.5 million personal guarantees represent significant financial exposure.
- The Borrower’s failure to repay and subsequent default judgments totaling approximately US$2.75 million plus costs indicate substantial credit risk.
- The use of high-value artworks and intellectual property as collateral reflects asset diversification strategies in high-net-worth lending.
- Litigation outcomes may influence market confidence in cross-border guarantees and enforcement in similar high-value commercial loans.
Strategic Recommendations
- Conduct thorough sanctions due diligence on all parties and underlying assets to mitigate regulatory risks across UK and US jurisdictions.
- Verify service of process protocols rigorously to avoid procedural setbacks; consider alternative service methods if necessary.
- Prepare for potential defenses based on undue pressure and consumer credit legislation; gather comprehensive documentary evidence.
- Monitor Jersey Court precedents and related judgments for impact on enforcement strategies.
- Engage expert valuation and forensic analysis of pledged artworks and IP to support asset recovery.
- Maintain close coordination between UK and US legal teams to navigate multi-jurisdictional enforcement and sanctions compliance.
---
**Source Notes:**
Sanctions Intelligence Digest, [https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2107.html](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2107.html)