Property tycoon Nick Candy has a legal battle with his former business partner real estate

Property tycoon Nick Candy is locked in a bitter legal dispute with his former business partner as they exchange accusations about each other’s behavior and financial worth.

Tory donor firm Candy Ventures Sarl (CVS) is investigating claims of fraudulent misinformation against social media company Aqua and its boss Robert Bonnier. Bonnier was once seen as one of the city’s young entrepreneurs as chief executive and founder of online business directory Scott, which was valued at more than £2bn at the height of the dotcom boom but was eventually bought for £5m.

CVS sued Bonnier, who was hit with a record fine for misleading the stock market in 2004, after he was persuaded to invest in Aqua based on representations that Apple and LVMH were going to put their money into the company. The deal involves CVS investing by transferring shares held by Kandy in Audioboom to Aaqua, in exchange for shares issued by Aqua itself.

Candy, who is married to former Neighbors actress Holly Valance, said he reported Bonnier to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the FBI over the allegations, which Bonnier denied. The Dutchman filed for reinstatement after a freezing order was wrongfully granted against his and Aqua’s properties.

International freezing orders, which apply not only in the UK but worldwide, were once described by a judge as “legal nuclear weapons”. Acqua and Bonnier said the order had a “catastrophic impact”, costing 160 jobs and 195 million euros (£170m), which they are seeking to recover from Candy and corporate funds.

CVS’s lawyers apologized for the “misleading information” provided when they received the freezing order and admitted they were “given in error” but denied the orders covered the damages or the claims.

The orders came after CVS’ lawyers indicated it held £13.8m of shares in Audioboom, which could be sold if the defendants were deemed to have suffered fair losses as a result of the freezing order. However, it was found The shares were already pledged to the Bank of Singapore as security for a loan against the property and could not be disposed of freely.

Candy, who bid for Chelsea Football Club last year, has re-delivered the building in One Hyde Park, which he developed with his brother Christian in Singapore Bank, in 2020. £160m

When it was revealed that the shares had been pledged elsewhere, Candy Ventures offered to provide a £10m bank guarantee as a “bulwark” to protect frozen orders. When he did not give the guarantee, the deadline was extended twice. On the second occasion, the judge ordered Candy to pay £1.5 million personally to the court order. When he failed to do so, the freezing order lapsed, five weeks after it was originally granted.

According to a court transcript seen by the Guardian, Stephen Robbins Casey, representing Akawa and Bonnier, told the High Court last year: “It cannot be right for the claimant to get freezing orders in the first place by misrepresenting the premises. Then take them out by setting up a fort, then decide for your own good to break the promises you made.

In response, Alec Haydon Casey, for Kandy Ventures, said that the figure set on Aqua’s losses was “arguably reached” and that it was a business decision not to provide the guarantee, because it was based on the information provided by the defendants. , there were “no properties to tie in quality”.

Robbins told the court that CVS had been told at the injunction hearing that it had between €400m and €500m in assets, but according to Candy itself, the actual amount was less than €200m and there were “incredible liabilities” on the balance sheet.

Hayden said Candy’s assets “really don’t come up for consideration” in the case. A source close to Kandy said he was a successful entrepreneur, CVS has invested in several startups and early-stage technology businesses, and any suggestion of “extraordinary liabilities” showed no understanding compared to the value and equity in those assets.

Skip past newsletter promotion

After newspaper promotion

In a statement, CVS said the freezing orders were granted “based on undisputed evidence of Mr. Bonnier’s lies, deception and association with Audioboom shares.”

“Candy Ventures Sarl has taken a business decision not to post and release additional security [freezing order] When no properties to freeze are declared, the freezing order becomes invalid. The decision is fully explained to the judge who accepted the position.

“Further allegation by Mr. Bonnier that Candy Ventures Sarl had misrepresented the value of the assets in order to obtain the value of the assets. [freezing order] They are completely false and the judge did not accept it. These claims are designed to distract the court’s attention from the high-profile investor fraud based on Mr. Bonnier, who has yet to file a defense to the claims.

“Candy Ventures Sarl’s well-proven allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, investor fraud and manipulation of Audioboom’s share price by Mr. Bonnier remain. Mr Bonnier has now been reported to the FCA, SFO, FBI and other authorities in various jurisdictions.

Joel Hogarth of Elliott & Luther, Bonnier’s counsel, said: “CVS was a sophisticated investor who conducted due diligence and negotiated representations and warranties. They are not making some vague ‘fraud’ claims, not a violation of the document they signed.

“After rejecting a good-faith offer to buy more than double their initial investment, CVS angrily demanded. [worldwide freezing order], was obtained through misinformation and CVS later admitted it was issued in error. Aqua denies all allegations against him and is actively pursuing his claim for damages.