Skip to content
Proof of concept · Explore the dossiers · Enquiries and subscriptions are unavailable

Market Financial Solutions: structure, collapse and disputes

MFS and London Bridging: collection account and loans

London Bridging was a Raja-linked mortgage funding company through successive holding entities. Its collection-account dispute and insolvency preceded the Twinwin provisional-liquidation application.

published
12 oct 2026
records as of
09 oct 2026
entities
183
sources
140
cite entities.csv

1Control and collection obligations

analysisLondon Bridging’s PSC history moves from PSR Equities to Zircon Group in July 2023. MFS serviced its mortgages and administered collections. The absence of registered company charges in the inspected Companies House list does not prove the absence of mortgage security or all contractual financing rights. 1 2 3

qualification
Absence of a registered charge is not proof that financing, trusts or other security arrangements did not exist. The figures and mortgage concerns were evidence for interim relief, with registrations and ultimate ownership still under investigation; they are not findings that every mortgage was fictitious.

analysisThe Twinwin judgment recounted applicants’ evidence that about £300 million of London Bridging mortgages appeared unregistered and that collection funds were mixed across the network. The court accepted this account as a basis for interim relief in a without-notice proceeding, rather than finally adjudicating every loan or alleged duplicate security. Raja’s spokesperson rejected the allegations and denied wrongdoing. Twinwin’s later compulsory liquidation is a separate procedural outcome. 3 4 5

qualification
The figures and mortgage concerns were evidence for interim relief, with registrations and ultimate ownership still under investigation; they are not findings that every mortgage was fictitious. The hearing was private and without notice. A good arguable case supporting interim liquidators is not a final adjudication of fraud, knowing receipt or dishonest assistance. The retained media account reports allegations and a judicial observation. The separately retained March judgment supplies its own limits: interim protection in a without-notice proceeding, rather than final determination of the alleged conduct. The later winding-up entry is a procedural outcome; it does not by itself prove the substantive allegations underlying the earlier application.
response
Raja’s spokesperson rejected the characterization of Twinwin and denied wrongdoing. NatWest said it could not comment on customers, described its controls and cooperation with authorities; the report says NatWest had no direct credit exposure to MFS or related entities.
outcome
Provisional liquidators were appointed; the later register records compulsory winding up on 18 June 2026. Compulsory winding up commenced on 18 June 2026.

sources in this section

  1. Companies House: London Bridging Limited — persons with significant control Companies House
  2. Companies House: London Bridging Limited — registered charges Companies House
  3. London Bridging and CLYL SV v Twinwin — [2026] EWHC 1053 (Ch) High Court of Justice / The National Archives
  4. Companies House: Twinwin Limited — insolvency record Companies House
  5. Media source · s-d17 identified by category only · Media

2The sequence of enforcement

analysisAn administration application was made on 9 February 2026, followed by receivers over the collection account on 13 February. London Bridging agreed to administration later that month and the order followed on 2 March. Its administrators then pursued the Twinwin matter, which is explained separately with the amounts, denial and later liquidation outcome. 1 2 3

qualification
The procedural chronology does not determine liability for the allegations; the judgment described Raja’s departure to Dubai as apparent, not independently established residence. The hearing was private and without notice. A good arguable case supporting interim liquidators is not a final adjudication of fraud, knowing receipt or dishonest assistance. The judgment accepted a good arguable case on a without-notice interim application. It did not finally determine Raja’s or Khan’s responsibility or Twinwin’s liability. The retained media account reports allegations and a judicial observation. The separately retained March judgment supplies its own limits: interim protection in a without-notice proceeding, rather than final determination of the alleged conduct. The later winding-up entry is a procedural outcome; it does not by itself prove the substantive allegations underlying the earlier application.
response
Twinwin did not have notice of the provisional-liquidator application; the order provided liberty to apply and a return date to address the court. Raja’s spokesperson rejected the characterization of Twinwin and denied wrongdoing. NatWest said it could not comment on customers, described its controls and cooperation with authorities; the report says NatWest had no direct credit exposure to MFS or related entities.
outcome
Provisional liquidators were appointed; the later register records compulsory winding up on 18 June 2026. Compulsory winding up commenced on 18 June 2026.

sources in this section

  1. London Bridging and CLYL SV v Twinwin — [2026] EWHC 1053 (Ch) High Court of Justice / The National Archives
  2. Companies House: Twinwin Limited — insolvency record Companies House
  3. Media source · s-d17 identified by category only · Media

cite this dossier

DossierTwist, “Market Financial Solutions: structure, collapse and disputes”, dt.001, 12 October 2026, https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/market-financial-solutions/

Free to read, cite and republish with credit under CC BY 4.0: credit “DossierTwist” and link to the dossier.

Data: JSON, CSV and the network graph.

We listen to all sides: responses are shown next to the claims they answer. To send a correction or a reply, write to .