Executive Summary
This 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 loan Facility Agreement made with their son, Andrew Valmorbida (the Borrower). The Borrower defaulted, triggering claims under personal guarantees limited to US$2.5 million each. The Defendants contest the validity of service of proceedings and the enforceability of guarantees, citing undue pressure and procedural irregularities. Default judgments were entered but later challenged by the Defendants under CPR rules 13.2 and 13.3.
Sanctions Highlights
- The case references sanctions implications, notably involving BIS (UK’s Export Control and Sanctions regime).
- The Facility Agreement and related transactions may implicate sanctions compliance due to the Borrower’s and Defendants’ international ties.
- The Defendants’ travel and residence in US jurisdictions (Miami Beach, NYC, Long Island) raise potential cross-border sanctions enforcement risks.
- No explicit sanctions violations are adjudicated, but the involvement of multiple jurisdictions (UK, US) suggests heightened scrutiny under sanctions laws.
Emerging Risks
- Enforcement of guarantees may be undermined by claims of procedural unfairness and invalid service, risking recovery delays.
- The Defendants’ assertion of excessive pressure and signing irregularities signals potential reputational and legal risks for lenders relying on personal guarantees.
- Cross-jurisdictional enforcement complexities arise from Defendants’ multiple residencies and the Borrower’s UK base.
- The Borrower’s prior court finding as a “deliberately dishonest witness” (Jersey Court, 2022) heightens risk of fraud or misrepresentation claims.
Geopolitical Impact
- Parties span multiple key jurisdictions: UK (venue and Borrower’s base), US (Defendants’ residences), Australia (Defendants’ nationality), and indirectly India, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela (sanctions context).
- The case underscores the complexity of enforcing financial guarantees amid geopolitical tensions affecting sanctions regimes.
- UK-US cooperation in legal and sanctions enforcement is critical given Defendants’ US presence and UK court jurisdiction.
- The Borrower’s involvement in Jersey legal proceedings highlights the Channel Islands’ role in international finance disputes.
Economic Intelligence
- The loan facility of US$33.41 million, with guarantees capped at US$2.5 million each, represents significant financial exposure.
- The Borrower’s failure to repay and the 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 but also valuation and liquidity risks.
- The dispute may affect investor confidence in cross-border lending secured by personal guarantees under pressured circumstances.
Strategic Recommendations
- Conduct thorough due diligence on service of process and guarantee enforceability in cross-jurisdictional contexts to mitigate default risk.
- Enhance sanctions compliance monitoring, especially for borrowers and guarantors with multinational ties and asset pledges.
- Develop protocols to document guarantee execution clearly and avoid claims of undue pressure or procedural irregularities.
- Coordinate with US legal counterparts to ensure effective enforcement and sanctions adherence given Defendants’ US residencies.
- Monitor reputational risks linked to borrowers with adverse judicial findings and potential fraud allegations.
---
**Source Notes:**
Sanctions Intelligence Digest — [Regera SARL v Cohen & Ors [2025] EWHC 2107 (Comm)](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2107.txt)