Medusas Madness

How to play Medusas Madness

Raja denies wrongdoing and maintains there was no fraud or dishonesty.

MFS operated as a non-bank lender—often termed a “shadow bank”—that borrowed funds from institutional investors to finance property loans for its clients.

The company experienced rapid expansion prior to its collapse, with its loan book reaching approximately £2.4 billion ($3.2 billion) by the end of 2024. Its creditors included major international financial institutions and private equity firms.

What is Medusas Madness?

“A proceeding aimed at impairing a single creditor is not the collective administration Chapter 15 contemplates, and the mismatch is not a technicality. It is part of the Debtors’ bad faith effort to forum shop for the most advantageous tool to use against their litigation adversary,” Skillz attorneys alleged.

The Debtors here deployed an insolvency statute against the one creditor whose judgment they wished to defer and compromise, left every ordinary-course creditor untouched, preserved their own equity, and sought releases for the insiders who directed the conduct that produced the judgment—then asked this Court to treat that machinery as proof that their affairs are centered in Israel,” the petition continued.

“The Court should refuse the relief requested by … because it is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States based on the Debtors’ well-documented and pervasive bad faith conduct,” the petition said. “The Debtors are using the Israeli Action—a limited action which lacks many of the core characteristics of a collective insolvency proceeding—as a strategic tool to evade responsibility for their deceptive conduct.”

About Medusas Madness

There is a second complication. The relentless flow of Commission statements may eventually make enforcement less damaging rather than more.

“The regulatory failures are unhelpful but perhaps the sheer number and regularity of them has made them less remarkable, such that they become ‘wallpaper’,” Waugh says.

He argues that some lawyers and licensees believe the Commission’s presentation of cases is detached from the operational reality but feel they have little option other than to accept the “regulator’s truth” when settling.