Stuart Alexander Law, 61, the co-founder and long-time CEO of property finance giant Assetz Capital, is at the centre of a High Court dispute brought by a specialist litigation funder on behalf of disgruntled investors.
This site is financed by donations to the ‘Cheese Fund‘ or you can buy me a coffee here
Reporting by freelance journalist and blogger Daniel Cloake
Assetz, founded in 1999, says it has financed one in every twelve new-build homes in recent years. But court filings, seen by Mouse in the Court, reveal a claim that its CEO Stuart Law personally accepted liability to pay funds which would flow to individuals “who were deeply (and understandably) unhappy about the conduct of [Mr Law] and the huge losses they had suffered as a result of investing in [Law’s] Cape Verde company“.
Mr Law denies accusations of wrongdoing and says in legal pleadings “that the claim should be struck out“.
A number of investors say they “collectively advanced significant sums of money” to the scheme, called Island Resorts LDA, but “the development subsequently failed.”
A 2018 agreement, signed after the failure, allegedly committed Mr Law to pay £12,000 in instalments, plus £1 million by 2021. The investors say the million was not paid, with the figure now standing at £1.2m after default penalties and are seeking 8% interest on top.
Mr Law, represented by King’s Counsel Mark Harper, disputes the claim and validity of the agreement, which he says was obtained under duress. He argues the project did not proceed because of the sudden departure of its development manager, inability to secure bank finance, and “non-contractual demands” from the Cape Verde government.
Law says that, after the project did not proceed, he agreed to then help fund the project as a “gesture of goodwill” by selling some of his shares in Assetz, an offer suddenly rejected by the investors, with one allegedly “informing [Mr Law] that he would make serious and damaging allegations against [Mr Law] to Assetz and others.”
Mr Law says the investors had made “false and unfounded” claims that he “had purportedly taken money from [Island Resorts] and had purportedly committed other unspecified wrongful acts as a director of the company that would be seen as detrimental if publicised… the outcome sought from that publicity was always made very specific and that was to cause serious economic harm to [him].”
Mr Law denies any accusations of wrongdoing and says the investors declined to look at the company records which would have “clearly shown that the proposed allegations were false.”
The threats were said to have been repeated and Mr Law was told the investors would “start talking” if he did not sign an “acceptable” agreement. An email was sent in which an investor said he was “going to set about releasing the information with vengeance.” The Mouse in the Court has not had sight of this email.
It is said the investor threatened to call, among others, Mr Law’s fellow directors, members of the press, and the Financial Conduct Authority.
Mr Law claims:
The intention was that if [I] did not sign an “acceptable” agreement then [the investor] would take these steps to damage [my] reputation in the Financial Services Industry, leading to [me] losing [my] job, bringing down Assetz ([myself] being the figurehead of that company) and therefore losing [my] (and around 2500 other shareholders) investment in the same together and [then] being unable to obtain another job in that industry
Law also said:
In light of the e-mails and conversations … [I] believed that if the Agreement was not entered into, then, within hours, [I] would be subject to the following potential consequences, regardless of whether the Allegations were without merit:
i. Having to answer to the Board of Directors of Assetz Capital in relation to the Allegations and that would in all likelihood lead to an inability to proceed with his directorship and employment with the company under the fit and proper FCA regime.
ii. To receive phone calls from the press in relation to the Allegations that could well have led to press coverage that meant Assetz Capital was “un-investable” and would have immediately lost all of its funding for its lending business.
iii. There were also active actual and potential institutional investors through Assetz Capital and any negative press coverage would have been expected to have terminated those discussions of investment.
iv. Assetz Capital was the culmination of several decades of business investment by [me] and held [my] entire stock of shareholder value accumulated over those decades and this would have been lost when the company collapsed.
As a result, Mr Law says he was forced into signing the agreement, described as “poorly and non-professionally drafted”, and is now entitled to have it set aside. “Any reasonable person in the same predicament would have acted in the same way,” he added.
He further says Manolete Partners PLC, which took assignment of the claim in 2024, has no standing to sue him as only the original investors could have done so.
In a response drafted by barrister Jon Colclough, Manolete reject Mr Law’s claim that he signed the agreement under duress. They say he signed because he wanted closure with investors who were “deeply and understandably unhappy” with him. They point to the fact that he was represented by City law firm Squire Patton Boggs at the time, and they say nothing illegitimate was said or done as the investors “were entirely correct to say that they had suffered huge losses as a result of the actions of [Mr Law].”
“The Claimant now seeks to enforce the straightforward contractual terms…There was no duress and [Mr Law] is not entitled to set aside the agreement.“
None of the claims have been tested in court.
We approached Mr Law for comment. He told us:
High-profile individuals with established reputations are often targeted with claims.
I deny what is framed as a ‘straightforward’ debt claim, for the detailed reasons set out in my Defence.
The background to this case is that I led a resort development project back in 2009 and received an investment proposal from a party in this case.
That was the lead investor in our project, aside from myself, and he states on his own website that “…back in 2007…we always dreamt that one day we would create a golf and beach resort for a new generation, with sustainability, affordable luxury and active living at its heart. Now our dream is about to come true”.
That investor and their associates now own the development company and the land in that project, having taken over that company in 2018, after I obtained planning permission for the resort.
The investors ultimately suffered no loss as my project was taken over by them, with my prior agreement in the wider interests of all involved and is now part of a larger €1.9 billion resort development they own and are building today.
This case is about a purported debt on top of that which is denied for the reasons given and was something done at the time to protect investors in Assetz as stated in the Defence.
I am robustly defending the matter, and I am confident that their claim will not succeed.
Manolete Partners Plc v Law
Case number: BL-2025-000543
The work on this site is protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved.
You may print off one copy, and may download extracts, of any page(s) from our site for your personal use and you may draw the attention of others within your organisation to content posted on our site.
You must not modify the paper or digital copies of any materials you have printed off or downloaded in any way, and you must not use any illustrations, photographs, video or audio sequences or any graphics separately from any accompanying text.
Our status (and that of any identified contributors) as the authors of content on our site must always be acknowledged.
You must not use any part of the content on our site for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence to do so from us.
Mouse in the Court 