BL-2020-001417 - [2025] EWHC 2487 (Ch)

Fecha: 01-Oct-2025

III The issues

III The issues

17.

The issues which now arise are as follows:

(1)

is Musst liable in unjust enrichment in respect of (a) management fees charged to Crown and the percentage received by Musst, (b) management fees charged to 2B and the percentage received by Musst, (c) performance fees charged to Crown and the percentage received by Musst, and (d) performance fees charged to 2B and the percentage received by Musst.

(2)

if so, is the claim statute barred in whole or in part;

(3)

does the claim fail because it was not assigned in that the assignment relied upon was by MMM to MRL whereas it was not MMM’s claim to assign but that of Matrix Alternative Asset Management Limited (“MAAM”) or the limited liability partnership Matrix Alternative Asset Management LLP (“MAAM LLP”);

(4)

does the claim fail because whatever rights remained in the relevant Matrix entity, they were transferred to LGBR Capital Limited LLP (or Bermuda Global Limited or Mr Reeves) and not to MRL;

(5)

what is the value of the unjust enrichment, and in particular:

(i)

is it a claim for a fixed fee or a retainer confined to its sales marketing and sales organisation work with Matrix dropping out on insolvency;

(ii)

if it is a claim for a percentage, what percentage is appropriate bearing in mind the expectations in negotiations, who brought each of 2B and Crown to the fund, the work done by Mr Siddiqi and by the representatives of Matrix prior to the insolvency of Matrix and the work done after insolvency.

(6)

to what extent is MRL liable to make counter-restitution and in what sums?

18.

Although these will be the subjects covered, the order will be different. This judgment will consider the following, namely:

(1)

the facts generally relating to the commercial relationships of Mr Mathur and Octave/Astra, Mr Siddiqi and Tapestry/Musst, and Mr Reeves and the Matrix group of companies;

(2)

whether remuneration in this case is by reference to services or end-product;

(3)

whether or to what extent the claims or any of them are barred by limitation;

(4)

to the extent, if any, that they are not barred by limitation, is Musst liable in unjust enrichment in respect of (a) management fees charged to Crown and the percentage received by Musst, (b) management fees charged to 2B and the percentage received by Musst?

(5)

to the extent, if any, that it is not barred by limitation, is Musst liable in unjust enrichment in respect of (a) performance fees charged to Crown and the percentage received by Musst, (b) performance fees charged to 2B and the percentage received by Musst?

(6)

what is the value of the unjust enrichment, and in particular:

(i)

is it a claim for a fixed fee or a retainer confined to its sales marketing and sales organisation work with Matrix dropping out on insolvency;

(ii)

if it is a claim for a percentage, what percentage is appropriate bearing in mind the expectations in negotiations, who brought each of The Observatory/2B and LGT/Crown to the fund, the work done by Mr Siddiqi and by the representatives of Matrix prior to the insolvency of Matrix and the work done after insolvency?

(7)

to what extent is MRL liable to make counter-restitution and in what sums?

(8)

does the claim fail because it was not assigned to Musst in that the assignment ought to have been by MAM to MRL rather than as was the case by MMM to MRL;

(9)

does the claim fail because whatever rights remained in the relevant Matrix entity, they were transferred to LGBR (or BGL or Mr Reeves) and not to MRL?