Executive Summary
This case concerns a dispute between Somerset Equipment Finance (UK) Ltd ("Claimant") and Lan Support Ltd ("Defendant") over payments made under finance agreements for non-existent broadcasting equipment. The Claimant paid three invoices totaling approximately £3.7 million, expecting to lease equipment from Arena Holdings Limited ("Arena") via a complex chain of contracts involving CMI Corporation Limited ("CMI") and the Defendant. Arena subsequently went into liquidation, revealing a fraud. The contracts are held void ab initio due to the non-existence of the equipment. The Claimant seeks summary judgment for repayment of the sums paid, while the Defendant argues it should only repay its profit margin, citing change of position and equitable defenses.
Sanctions Highlights
— No sanctions implications identified in the case.
Emerging Risks
- The case highlights risks of fraud in asset finance transactions involving complex contractual chains and third-party brokers.
- Reliance on intermediaries such as Primary Asset Finance (PAF) without direct verification increases vulnerability to fraudulent schemes.
- Waiving standard due diligence procedures (e.g., equipment inspection) at the request of the counterparty can exacerbate exposure to fraud.
- Potential reputational risk for finance companies involved in transactions with insolvent or fraudulent entities.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case involves entities based in the UK (Somerset Equipment Finance, Lan Support, CMI, PAF) and a company operating at Redhill Aerodrome, UK (Arena Holdings Limited).
- The fraud and subsequent insolvency of Arena have implications for UK asset finance markets and creditor protections.
- The involvement of UK courts underscores the jurisdictional role of English commercial law in cross-company asset finance disputes.
- The case may influence UK regulatory scrutiny on asset finance brokers and intermediaries.
- The United States is indirectly relevant due to the global nature of asset finance and potential cross-border insolvency considerations, though not explicitly detailed in the judgment.
Economic Intelligence
- The total indebtedness of Arena and related companies to asset-based lenders exceeds £1 billion.
- Liquidators have claims against former bankers of Arena group companies for approximately £280 million.
- No recoveries have yet been made by liquidators, indicating significant financial losses for creditors.
- The Defendant’s repayment of only its commission/profit element leaves the Claimant exposed to substantial unrecovered losses.
- The case underscores systemic risks in asset finance lending to companies with opaque ownership and financial structures.
Strategic Recommendations
- Asset finance companies should enforce rigorous due diligence, including physical verification of assets, regardless of counterparty assurances or broker involvement.
- Contracts should explicitly address risk allocation and include robust warranties regarding asset existence and title.
- Legal teams should prepare to challenge change of position defenses in restitution claims where contracts are void ab initio.
- Financial institutions should monitor intermediary brokers closely and require transparency in their role and communications.
- Regulators may consider enhanced oversight of asset finance brokers and intermediaries to mitigate fraud risks.
- Parties should maintain clear audit trails and document all communications to support claims in litigation.
---
**Source Notes:**
Case Title: Sanctions Intelligence Digest
Link: https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/586.html