Executive Summary
- The claimants seek summary judgment for repayment of £3 million plus 10% interest under a May 2022 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RiverRock European Capital Partners LLP (D1) and Michel Preti (D2).
- The MOU governed an equity investment and repayment arrangement tied to negotiations with a creditor, CFE.
- Defendants deny repayment liability, arguing the repayment terms are not legally binding or are contingent, and raise issues of authority and non-party claims.
- The Court finds the repayment regime in the MOU likely legally binding, rejecting the defence that payment obligations exist without repayment obligations.
- The case hinges on interpretation of contractual language, especially the “subject to contract” markings and comparison with a prior April 2022 MOU.
Sanctions Highlights
- No direct sanctions imposed or referenced in the judgment.
- Sanctions implications flagged due to involvement of cross-border financing and equity transactions potentially subject to UK regulatory oversight.
- FCA approval referenced as a condition for equity conversion, indicating regulatory compliance considerations.
- Personal warranty by Michel Preti may expose him to individual liability under UK law, relevant for enforcement amid sanctions regimes.
Emerging Risks
- Legal uncertainty over enforceability of repayment clauses in MOUs marked “subject to contract” creates litigation risk in cross-border investment deals.
- Potential exposure of non-signatory parties (e.g., claimants’ associated companies) to double liability claims if undertakings fail.
- Risk of delayed or failed equity conversion due to regulatory or creditor negotiation failures (CFE).
- Ambiguity in authority for signatories (e.g., C3’s father signing) may complicate enforcement and increase dispute likelihood.
Geopolitical Impact
- UK jurisdiction governs the dispute, reinforcing London’s role as a key legal venue for international commercial disputes.
- FCA involvement highlights UK’s regulatory influence on cross-border capital transactions.
- The case underscores the UK courts’ willingness to enforce contractual obligations despite “subject to contract” caveats, impacting investor confidence.
- Potential implications for European capital partners navigating UK legal and regulatory frameworks post-Brexit.
Economic Intelligence
- £3 million advanced in instalments to RiverRock reflects significant capital injection amid financial distress.
- 10% contractual interest rate signals high-risk investment environment.
- Failure to finalize equity conversion or creditor agreement (CFE) may impair RiverRock’s financial restructuring.
- The judgment may accelerate repayment, affecting RiverRock’s liquidity and investor relations.
- The case illustrates challenges in structuring interim financing agreements pending regulatory approvals.
Strategic Recommendations
- Parties should ensure clear, unequivocal contractual language on repayment and binding obligations, avoiding “subject to contract” ambiguity.
- Investors must secure explicit authority for signatories to prevent challenges to enforceability.
- Incorporate robust undertakings to protect non-party lenders from double jeopardy.
- Monitor FCA and UK regulatory developments closely when structuring equity conversions.
- Consider early dispute resolution mechanisms to mitigate litigation risk in complex financing deals.
- Legal counsel should prepare for potential cross-jurisdictional enforcement issues given the international nature of parties and transactions.
---
**Source Notes:**
Sanctions Intelligence Digest | [https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/845.html](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/845.html)