London Ruling Holds Two Man Group Subsidiaries Liable for Improper Payments

Key Facts

Man Group said the High Court in London had issued a ruling in a lawsuit brought by Kuwait’s Public Institution for Social Security (PIFSS), finding two of the group’s subsidiaries liable for improper payments to a former Kuwaiti official. The company said the court found that two former employees on its regional sales team knew that former broker Mohamed Al-Ghazi was making improper payments to Fahd al-Raja'an. It said the judge held the subsidiaries liable for the employees’ conduct. PIFSS said it had sought $156 million in damages, plus interest, over allegations dating from 1993 to 2013. The ruling, however, indicated that the institution was entitled to recover about $155 million from several parties, including the two Man Group subsidiaries. The company said it was appealing the ruling on both liability and the amount, adding that the figures in it were not final.

Man Group said the judge’s findings covered two former employees and did not extend to other current or former employees of the group. The company quoted the ruling as saying the judge "did not find that any other current or former Man Group employee was aware of the improper payments." It added that the ruling contained no "broader adverse findings against Man Group." This detail defines the scope of the judicial findings announced by the company: the relevant former employees’ knowledge of the payments and the subsidiaries’ liability for their conduct. The group, meanwhile, maintains its challenge to the finding of liability and the amount of damages that may be imposed on it. The disclosure did not specify a final amount the group would have to pay, saying the financial issues remained subject to further proceedings.

The lawsuit dates back well before the ruling: Man Group said the case concerned a contract originally entered into in 1993. It described the matter as a legacy issue involving former employees who left the group more than 13 and 18 years ago, as well as products and a distribution model it no longer uses. Reuters reported that PIFSS filed the lawsuit in the High Court in London in 2019, accusing al-Raja'an of embezzling about $1 billion while in office. Al-Raja'an led the institution from 1984 to 2014 and was convicted in absentia in Kuwait in 2016, before dying in London in 2022, Reuters reported. Reuters also said EFG Bank, one of the defendants, announced in September that it had reached a settlement with PIFSS. These facts highlight the dispute’s span over the years, from allegations relating to 1993–2013 to the lawsuit filed in 2019 and the current ruling.

The trial began in March 2025 and ended in March 2026, according to an Investing.com report attributed to Reuters. The report said shares fell 5% on Friday, November 6, following the ruling, and that potential damages amounted to about $155 million. Man Group’s assets under management had reached a record $270.9 billion on September 30, 2026, compared with $253.6 billion at the end of June, according to the Investing.com report. These figures put the ruling in the context of a company whose assets under management rose between the end of the second quarter and the end of the third, as it faced potential exposure linked to the dispute. The disclosure did not specify the ruling’s final financial impact on the group, nor did it determine how much the two subsidiaries would bear after settlements, interest and costs. The estimate of about $155 million therefore relates to what the ruling indicates PIFSS may recover from several parties, not to a final amount of Man Group liability that has been announced.

A hearing is scheduled for mid-November to consider matters arising from the ruling, including the precise amount of Man Group’s financial liability. The company said the final calculation would take into account the effect of settlements, interest and costs, and that the figures in the ruling were "not final and subject to change." The group’s share of the potential amount therefore remains undetermined pending the court’s consideration of these items. The company is also challenging both liability and the amount of damages, making the next hearing a step toward determining the financial amount that may apply to it. In its disclosure, the company gave neither a final figure for what it would pay nor another date for resolving the dispute after the mid-November hearing.