Octus Q3’26 EMEA Litigation, R&I Wrap: MFS Claims Reach £1.5B; Aston Martin Lenders Challenge IP Transfer; English Court Stays Hunkemoller ICA-Drag Proceedings

This is Octus’ roundup of the most important legal disputes affecting credit outcomes across the EMEA region in the third quarter of 2026, including fallout from alleged fraud, lender pushback on aggressive liability management exercises and creditors testing the limits of enforcement and recovery rights.

During the quarter, we saw the sprawling web of claims following the collapse of Market Financial Solutions expand to around £1.5 billion. Aston Martin‘s controversial intellectual property transfer received pushback from primed bondholders holding over 90% of the secured debt. Meanwhile, further developments in Hunkemoller’s contested 2024 uptier transaction saw the English High Court conclude that the Assenagon claim could not be separated from an uptiering claim pursued in New York.

The following digest was generated with help from Octus’s proprietary AI.

Claimant: Ocorian Trustee (UK) Ltd. and Cronus Finance Ltd.

Defendants: 15 individual investors in Market Financial Solutions.

Additional Related Proceedings:
 

• Claimants: Joint Administrators of MFS Ltd., London Bridging Ltd. (in administration), and a group of 23 SPVs including Market Finance Solutions International.
• Defendant: Paresh Raja (founder and former CEO of Market Financial Solutions).

Nature of Dispute: The cases involve multiple claims totaling over £1.5 billion arising from the alleged misappropriation and fraudulent diversion of funds from the Market Financial Solutions securitization structure.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Key Dates:
 

• Nov. 2, 2026 (three-day window commencing): Hearing for London Bridging’s summary judgment application

Case Overview: Market Financial Solutions collapsed into administration in February 2026 after Barclays froze £145 million of its funds in November 2025. Administrators found compelling evidence of fraud and a shortfall of about £1.3 billion in MFS’s bank accounts.

Wells Fargo, the senior secured creditor owed £142.7 million, is trying to recover about £6 million paid to MFS investors in December 2025.

Administrators are pursuing Raja for up to £1.5 billion, alleging he misappropriated funds including to acquire U.K. residential property worth roughly £950 million to £1.1 billion. In his Sept. 28, 2026, defense, Raja denies dishonesty and breach of duty, calls the £1.3 billion figure unreliable because it ignores the property portfolio, cash and group lending operations, and blames Barclays’ freeze for the collapse. He also faces a £242 million claim from London Bridging Ltd. and a pending £278 million claim from 23 SPVs, and warns of double recovery. On Aug. 6, 2026, the High Court allowed him to use frozen funds to repay £9 million owed to investor Sidharth Mehta under a personal guarantee.
 

Claimant: Ad hoc group of bondholders
.
Defendant: Aston Martin.

Nature of Dispute: The dispute revolves around Aston Martin’s £550 million ‘pari plus’ debt financing with HPS Investment Partners.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Case Overview: Aston Martin raised £550 million from HPS (a £450 million term loan and a £100 million delayed-draw loan) through a Cayman-based structure, transferring 195 trademarks, including the core vehicle brand name and logo, to a new entity, SilverCo. The delayed-draw tranche is reportedly conditional on moving 50.1% of non-automotive IP to a joint venture with ABG.

Bondholders holding over 90% of the secured debt say this evades the J. Crew blocker in their indentures and strips material assets at an undervalue. They also point to their rejected, cheaper £250 million alternative, HPS’ board seats at both the F1 team and ABG, and the risk of “poison pill” licensing terms. They have sought discovery in New York and sent letters before action in England under Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
 

Claimants: Ad hoc group of former bondholders.

Defendants: Hunkemoller International BV.

Nature of Dispute: An ad hoc group of former bondholders is challenging Hunkemoller’s 2024 uptier transaction and subsequent acquisition by Redwood Capital under distressed disposal provisions in the English intercreditor agreement.

Dispute Status: The English proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the New York uptiering case, with a decision in New York expected within 12-18 months.

Key Dates:
 

• New York decision expected within 12-18 months from August 2026.
• Potential New York appeal hearing: first half of 2029.
• Original English trial date: 2027 at earliest or 2028 (now stayed).

Case Overview: The claimants seek declarations that the enforcement actions were invalid and restoration as holders of the senior secured notes. Justice Leech declined to stay proceedings pending any New York appeal but granted both parties permission to apply for further relief if circumstances materially change. The case was expected to be the first test of the abuse principle in English law in the context of a distressed disposal under an English ICA, with the 2012 Assenagon case being the most recent authority on preventing minority creditor oppression through contractual power abuse.

The English High Court on Aug. 6 concluded that the Assenagon abuse of power claim could not be separated from the uptiering validity issues being litigated in New York, as both cases rest on parallel proceedings with near identical facts and disputed valuation issues. The court cited the risk of inconsistent judgments and the advanced stage of the New York proceedings as strong reasons favoring the stay.
 

Claimant: An ad hoc group of EMTN noteholders.

Defendant: Annington.

Nature of Dispute: The dispute centers around Annington’s £5.994 billion sale of its interest in the Married Quarters Estate, or MQE.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Case Overview: The noteholders argue that an event of default was triggered by the sale because the MQE made up 92% of Annington’s annual rental income. They have replaced BNY Mellon with GLAS as trustee over three series of notes.

GLAS served acceleration notices in January demanding full repayment, then began court proceedings in April seeking £738 million. Annington rejects the notices as a legal nullity. It spent £2.7 million on professional fees related to the dispute in the year to March 2026. It held just under £1.4 billion in cash at March 31 and says it is keeping that while it looks for stable, quality assets with attractive yields.
 

Claimant: A group of institutional investors.

Defendant: Debenhams Group.

Nature of Dispute: Institutional investors are alleging that Debenhams Group executives knew about factory labor violations in their supply chain but failed to disclose this information to investors.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Case Overview: A High Court lawsuit first brought in 2024 by the California State Teachers Retirement System against Debenhams Group (formerly Boohoo) has grown, with 11 more institutional investors, including the Bank of Korea and Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds, joining in July. That brings the total to 58 investors and lifts the compensation sought from £177 million to £245 million.

The investors allege that executives knew of factory labor violations in the supply chain but failed to disclose them, causing investors financial harm. Debenhams Group denies all allegations and is defending the claim.
 

Claimant: John Textor.

Defendants: Eagle Football Holdings Bidco.

Nature of Dispute: Former Eagle Football Holdings CEO John Textor is suing Eagle Football Group CEO for over $400 million.

Dispute Status: Ongoing

Case Overview: Textor alleges Michelle Kang conspired with senior lender Ares to take over Olympique Lyonnais through a loan-to-own deal. The complaint centers on a secret July 2025 side agreement that created a shadow committee dominated by Ares noteholders, gave Ares veto rights, and secured Kang’s CEO role through June 2027. Textor says the agreement was hidden from the boards and that Kang and Ares engineered defaults. He also says the resulting administration wiped out over $230 million owed by Lyon to affiliated clubs. The dispute stems from covenant breaches on a $450 million Ares loan from 2023 and parallel criminal complaints and counter-charges have been filed in France.

In related English High Court proceedings, Iconic Sports Eagle Investment is seeking summary judgment to enforce a $75 million put option plus 11% annual interest. The court also barred Bidco’s administrators, Cork Gully, from selling Botafogo shares that Textor claims to own.
 

Claimant: Telecom Italia (TIM)

Defendant: FiberCop

Nature of Dispute: The dispute centers around new landline grid tariffs.

Dispute Status: The Milan Court has dismissed TIM’s preliminary injunction application, though the underlying dispute may remain outstanding.

Case Overview: Telecom Italia filed a preliminary injunction application against KKR-backed FiberCop, seeking to force the telecoms network operator to disclose the terms of service outlined in its Master Service Agreement to Italian communications authority AGCOM. The dispute reportedly centers on new landline grid tariffs under a revised tariff structure that imposes dozens of millions of euros in additional annual costs on TIM.

The Milan Court dismissed TIM’s application, ruling that the claimant failed to meet the requirements for interim relief. The court determined that TIM’s interpretation of the Master Service Agreement was not supported by the contractual provisions and that FiberCop had no obligation to make the requested disclosure. Additionally, the court stated that prices provided for under the Master Service Agreement are not applicable in areas subject to the regulatory framework established by AGCOM.
 

Claimant: Glencore.

Defendant: Prax Lindsay Oil Refinery Ltd. (PLOR).

Nature of Dispute: Glencore supplied Prax with crude oil worth more than $230 million for which it has not been paid and claims it was induced to supply the crude by fraudulent misrepresentations made by Prax prior to its collapse on June 30, 2025. Glencore is asserting an equitable rescission claim over the oil, or the traceable proceeds of the subsequently refined product, on the basis that the contract should be considered void.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Case Overview: Parx’s Lindsay Oil Refinery collapsed following irregularities in a £783 million HSBC-arranged securitization facility, into which founder Winston Sanjeevkumar Soosaipillai allegedly caused at least £334 million of fictitious invoices to be sold. Glencore argues its contract with PLOR should be canceled for fraudulent misrepresentation, giving it proprietary rights over the crude oil it supplied or the traceable proceeds of refined products. On Sept. 21 Trower J ruled that Glencore could proceed with its equitable rescission claim.
 

Claimant: Foreign hedge funds and large institutional insurers.

Defendant: Renault.

Nature of Dispute: The dispute involves allegations against Renault regarding older-generation diesel vehicle emissions.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Case Overview: In France, a judicial investigation opened in 2017 into emissions from older-generation diesel vehicles has been referred to criminal court by a Paris investigating court. Renault denies wrongdoing, noting that the referral order acknowledges its vehicles had no fraudulent devices designed to detect type-approval testing cycles. It says all its vehicles were properly type-approved under French and European rules and that emission control limits balanced emissions reduction with driver safety.

In the civil proceedings, foreign hedge funds and large institutional insurers, who are also participating in the French criminal case, brought claims against Renault in the London High Court. The court recently dismissed all claims. Renault said it will seek to recover its legal costs from the claimants, and will continue to defend its innocence in the French criminal court.
 

Claimant: HSBC Middle East, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, Commercial Bank of Dubai, Dubai Islamic Bank, and formerly Emirates NBD and Emirates Islamic Bank.

Defendant: IFFCO.

Nature of Dispute: The creditor group, led by HSBC, is pursuing winding-up proceedings against IFFCO Group entities in the Isle of Man and Singapore.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Key Dates:
 

• Early November 2026: Adjourned substantive judicial management hearing in Singapore; and
• November 24-25, 2026: Winding-up hearing in the Isle of Man.

Case Overview: IFFCO Group stopped servicing its debt for more than six months and lost access to short-term credit after failing to close its 2024 audit. A creditor group led by HSBC, holding about $958 million of the debt, began winding-up proceedings against AIL in the Isle of Man and judicial management proceedings against IFFCO Singapore, initially seeking a rescue. On Sept. 4, 2026, the Isle of Man court ruled it lacks jurisdiction to appoint provisional liquidators for a rescue, as the island has no equivalent of English administration.
 

Claimant: Value8 NV.

Defendant: OCI NV.

Nature of Dispute: Value8 NV filed a petition with the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal seeking an inquiry into OCI’s affairs amid its proposed combination with Orascom Construction.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Case Overview: The petition follows a Jan. 19 Dutch court ruling that halted the merger and appointed two independent non-executive directors to investigate conflicts of interest, giving them sole authority to schedule a shareholder vote. OCI calls the petition meritless and remains committed to the deal.

Under the terms of the merger, OCI shareholders would receive 0.4634 Orascom Construction shares per OCI share and own about 47% of the combined entity, with OCI valued at roughly $1.35 billion and Orascom Construction at $1.52 billion. Dissenting investors, including the Dutch shareholders association VEB and The Oceanwood Fund, blocked a Jan. 22 vote over Sawiris family control on both sides, board overlap and valuation. Largest shareholder NNS Holding (Cyprus) Ltd. still backs the deal, while Oceanwood Capital Management has withdrawn the power of attorney it gave VEB for the Enterprise Chamber proceedings.
 

Claimant: OHLA.

Defendant: Grupo Villar Mir.

Nature of Dispute: OHLA is seeking to recover €45.85 million in outstanding debt from Grupo Villar Mir following a failed conciliation process related to a 2021 debt settlement agreement.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Key Dates:
 

• Late 2026 – H1 2027: OHLA plans to refinance bonds

Case Overview: The outstanding debt stems from a 2021 agreement in which Villar Mir settled only part of an initial €129 million debt owed to OHLA. The Spanish construction group is now preparing to escalate the matter through the courts with a lawsuit expected to be filed in September.

The financial dispute comes as OHLA faces multiple legal challenges affecting its operations. During analysis discussions, OHLA CEO Tomas Ruiz disclosed that separate U.S. litigation has resulted in a €20.8 million EBITDA impact on the company. Despite these legal and financial pressures, OHLA reported H1 2026 results showing net profit of €0.5 million and EBITDA of €103.6 million. The company is also managing its capital structure, with plans to refinance bonds scheduled between late 2026 and the first half of 2027.
 

Claimant: GLAS.

Defendants: Chenran Qiu, Dynamic Treasure and Xinbo.

Nature of Dispute: The dispute concerns the alleged misappropriation of 12 million shares in French retailer SMCP.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Key Dates: A subsequent trial is scheduled to determine the quantum of damages owed to GLAS.

Case Overview: GLAS, as trustee for €250 million of convertible bonds, has won a five-year U.K. High Court battle over the misappropriation of 12 million shares in French retailer SMCP. After European TopSoho (ETS) failed to repay its notes in September 2021, the shares were moved through the British Virgin Islands to a Singapore bank account for 1 under a fraudulent share transfer agreement, placing them beyond bondholders’ reach. The court held this was a transaction at a significant undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The defendants had been debarred from the trial for ignoring court orders, and the court found several of their documents, including the transfer agreement and a Chinese arbitration award, inauthentic or not credible. The shares were returned to the Luxembourg issuer’s bankrupt estate in August 2025. Compensation and damages will be assessed at a later trial.
 

Claimant: Deltroit, CQS and Algebris.

Defendant: Selecta.

Nature of Dispute: The dispute concerns a share pledge enforcement that transferred control of Selecta from KKR to an ad hoc group of bondholders.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Case Overview: Several former minority bondholders in Swiss vending machine group Selecta, including Deltroit, CQS and Algebris, are seeking to overturn a May 2025 share pledge enforcement that handed control from KKR to an ad hoc bondholder group, including SVP, Diameter and Man Group, for a nominal €1. On June 30, the Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal ruled their appeal admissible, finding they should have been invited to take part in the sale approval process. Seagull Bidco Ltd. appealed to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands on July 28.

The excluded creditors entered into settlement talks in August, with a status update to the New York federal court due on Oct.13.
 

Claimant: Thames Water.

Defendant: Various creditor classes.

Nature of Dispute: Thames Water is seeking to extend debt maturities and obtain waivers while negotiating a comprehensive recapitalization plan led by a subset of its Class A creditors with Ofwat and the government.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Key Dates:
 

• Early December 2026: Thames Water expects to need additional funding from an upsized super senior facility requiring 75% creditor consent;
• April 1, 2027: Deadline for launching RP2 or Thames will launch a specific plan to extend super senior debt beyond October 2027;
• Oct. 1, 2027: Alternative deadline for launching holistic second restructuring plan (RP2);
• March 2027: Thames Water’s earliest current debt maturity; and
• September 2027: Target extension date for debt maturities if RP2 is not launched by October 1, 2027.

Case Overview: Thames Water filed two restructuring plans on Sept. 17 as a preliminary step to extend certain debt maturities and obtain waivers while it negotiates with Ofwat and the government. Its earliest maturity is in March 2027, and if it cannot launch its comprehensive second plan (RP2) by Oct. 1, 2027, it will need alternative schemes to extend maturities beyond September 2027. The Class A creditor consortium, London & Valley Water (L&VW), has been negotiating with Ofwat since June 2025 over a proposal involving £3.35 billion of new equity, up to £6.55 billion of new debt, a 30% write-off of Class A debt and a full write-off of Class B debt.

L&VW’s £3 billion of super senior financing, approved under the first plan (RP1), is keeping the company out of insolvency, with the company recently launching a consent request to increase the super senior financing by £2.4 billion to cover liquidity until October 2027.

Coverage of Thames Water Utilities Ltd. is HERE.

Claimant: FitzWalter Capital.

Defendant: VietJet.

Nature of Dispute: FitzWalter Capital is seeking to enforce about $250 million in unpaid judgment debt.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Key Dates:
 

• March 15, 2027: Recognition application and VietJet’s challenge to be heard in France.

Case Overview: On Sept. 30, 2026, The English High Court appointed Alvarez & Marsal over all of VietJet’s assets outside Vietnam. He rejected VietJet’s argument that the receivership was disproportionate, noting it could avoid it by paying or at least proposing concrete payment terms. He identified substantial assets that receivers could realize more effectively, including about $300 million of maintenance reserves receivable within 12 months, engines and aircraft, pre-delivery payments and lease deposits. The court left open extending the order to assets in Vietnam and said it has reasonable prospects of recognition in several jurisdictions, including France, Ireland, Australia and the British Virgin Islands.
 

Claimant: Ad hoc group of PIK noteholders.

Defendant: Ardagh Group.

Nature of Dispute: The PIK noteholders are challenging a Luxembourg restructuring plan that would convert their secured PIK notes into near-worthless equity shares.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Key Dates:
 

• End of 2026: Expected decision from the Luxembourg Court of Appeal

Case Overview: The District Court of Luxembourg approved a restructuring plan for ARD Finance, Ardagh Group’s PIK notes issuer, on May 29, 2026, over the opposition of dissenting PIK noteholders. Described as the first large-cap judicial reorganization in Luxembourg, it equitizes about 12% by value of PIK holders who declined a private exchange, and forms part of a wider restructuring largely carried out consensually outside the formal plan process. Implementation is suspended pending appeal.

The appellants argue the plan is not in creditors’ best interest, does not ensure viability, unlawfully discriminates between creditors, and abuses the process. They allege an artificial insolvency was engineered, through a pre-arranged Restructuring Implementation Agreement including a $300 million payment to former owner Paul Coulson, to bypass the PIK indenture’s 90% consent threshold and strip PIK holders of their security. The first instance court found recoveries of about 0.34% under the plan versus 0.046% in liquidation, but the appellants say comparing cash in bankruptcy with illiquid minority shares is flawed. An introductory hearing is scheduled for Sept. 29 where a date will be scheduled for a hearing on the merits. A decision is expected by the end of the year.

On Sept. 16 a summary judge of the district court of Luxembourg issued an order prohibiting it from currently proceeding with the sale of all or part of its interests in Ardagh Metal Packaging SA. The ex parte application was brought by the minority PIK group. On Oct.15 this order was withdrawn by the court.
 

Claimant: Ad hoc group of bondholders.

Defendant: Grupo Antolin.

Nature of Dispute: Bondholder group challenges Grupo Antolin’s proposed Spanish restructuring plan.

Dispute Status: Ongoing.

Case Overview: Under the proposed recapitalization, all secured creditors would extend maturities to 2035 at 6.97%. Banks providing working capital could instead roll into 2032 instruments with elevated super senior status, and noteholders could exchange into 2030 instruments at 67.5% of face value, in return for first ranking status. The Antolin family keeps its equity without new contribution, and the elevation of working capital facilities effectively primes bonds and non-participating banks by about 220 million.

About 67.5% of bank debt, including Santander, BBVA, CaixaBank, Sabadell and Bankinter, supports the plan. A bondholder steering committee holding roughly 66-67.2% of the senior secured notes opposes it, arguing that it breaches the English-law intercreditor agreement, violates the absolute priority rule by letting shareholders keep equity, and discriminates between creditor classes. On July 20, 2026, bondholders issued a notice of default and acceleration, arguing that the Spanish insolvency filing of July 10 was an event of default. The ad hoc group also served winding-up petitions in the U.K and in English proceedings, filed on July 14, the claimants seek declarations from the High Court that the new security interests, the new guarantees and the purported amendments to the ICA effected by the Spanish Plan constitute breaches of the intercreditor agreement and are invalid and of no effect under English law as a result of the Rule in Gibbs.

On Friday, Aug. 14 Antolin entered into a standstill agreement with a steering committee, or SteerCo, of holders of its 2028 notes and 2030 notes to facilitate a stable platform for constructive negotiations in relation to a consensual recapitalization of the group. During the standstill period, the parties undertake to pause all legal actions and engage in good faith discussions. The standstill has been extended a number of times, most recently to Oct.16.