MFS and Amber Bridging: servicing and funded loans

analysisZircon Group was Amber’s shareholder and registered controlling entity. Amber’s April proposals identify WHCO International SubCo DAC as senior lender, two GLEU entities as mezzanine lenders and Zircon Group as subordinated lender. The named tiers and their creditors are more precise than calling every institution a direct creditor of MFS Limited. ^{1 2}

qualification

The approximately £622.9 million external secured debt excludes the unverified parent balance. The report estimated no return to the mezzanine and subordinated lenders and uncertain senior recovery.

outcome

Beveridge and Kennedy were the joint administrators following the 19 March changes.

analysisThe proposals recorded £525 million in senior debt, £75 million and £22,912,998 in mezzanine debt, and a management-record subordinated balance of about £50.1 million that administrators had not verified. Intertrust Trustees held the security for these creditors. The approximately £622.9 million secured-debt summary covered the senior and mezzanine tiers. Senior recovery was uncertain, while the table anticipated no return to mezzanine or subordinated creditors; these were provisional recovery assessments. ^{3 2}

qualification

Outstanding means the status in the retained register snapshot; the security agent is distinct from the underlying lenders. The approximately £622.9 million external secured debt excludes the unverified parent balance. The report estimated no return to the mezzanine and subordinated lenders and uncertain senior recovery. The administrators warned that the estimated position might be materially misstated. The non-cash recovery assumption was uncertain and subject to change, not a final asset valuation.

analysisMFS’s records described about 191 live Amber loans worth £691 million, while administrators had documents for 28 live loans worth £213.4 million. Those gaps and missing remittances drove the replacement of servicing and recovery work. Loan-document coverage is different from the final realisable value of security. ^{1 2 3}

qualification

The report describes the loans for which documents were available, not a final count of every enforceable mortgage. Apparent borrower connections to Raja remained attributed concerns. These are the applicant administrators’ stated claims and concerns, with liabilities and losses requiring further determination. The April report describes transition work and obligations without establishing a completed-transfer date for every loan.

analysisIntertrust appointed Amber administrators on 23 February 2026. Subsequent appointment changes addressed conflicts with the MFS administration. The earlier allegations of diverted receipts and duplicate collateral were matters for investigation; Raja denies wrongdoing. Amber’s own asset and creditor schedules retain their dated and uncertain estimates. ^{1 3 2 4 5 6}

qualification

The court says negligence, wilful misconduct, fraud and misrepresentation claims require further investigation; the administration order is not a merits finding on double pledging. This is an attributed account in the retained reporting, with the stated procedural and source limits; it is not a determination of the underlying contested allegation. The administrators warned that the estimated position might be materially misstated. The non-cash recovery assumption was uncertain and subject to change, not a final asset valuation.

response

Barclays said it acted throughout in accordance with legal and regulatory obligations and attributed the alleged fraud to MFS and Raja; Raja contests the administrators’ attribution and arithmetic.

outcome

Beveridge and Kennedy were the joint administrators following the 19 March changes.