Applicant

G A Popescu
1st Witness Statement
6 February 2015
Exhibit GAP1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

No.

of 2015

CHANCERY DIVISION

COMPANIES COURT

IN THE MATTER OF BOSTON PRIME LIMITED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTMENT BANK SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS 2011

WITNESS STATEMENT OF
GEORGE ALEX POPESCU

I, George Alex Popescu, of Boston Prime Limited, Citypoint Suite 1248, 1 Ropemaker Street, London
EC2Y 9HT WILL SAY:
1.

I am the sole director of Boston Prime Limited (company no. 07435569) (the Company).

UK 204833007.1

2.

In my capacity as the Companys only director, I make this witness statement in support of an
application for a special administration order in respect of the Company.

3.

The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge, unless
otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by
others, I identify the source of that information. Facts and matters derived from other sources
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

4.

There is now produced and shown to me a paginated bundle of true copy documents marked
GAP1. All references to documents in this statement are to Exhibit GAP1 unless otherwise
stated.

The Company and related entities

5.

The Company provided foreign exchange brokerage services for professional (as opposed to
retail) clients (as explained below, it has now ceased to trade). It is regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority (FCA) to perform the following functions:
a) agreeing to carry on a regulated activity;
b) arranging (bringing about) deals in investments;
c) arranging safeguarding and administration of assets;
d) dealing in investments as agent;
e) dealing in investments as principal; and
f)

6.

making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments.

An extract from the FCAs Financial Services Register for the Company is exhibited to this
statement at pages 1 to 3 of GAP1.

7.

An extract from the FCAs Financial Services Register, showing that I am authorised as a CF1
Director of the Company is exhibited to this statement at page 4 of GAP1.

8.

A copy of the page from the Companies House website showing that I am the sole director of
the Company is exhibited at page 5 of GAP1.

UK 204833007.1

9.

The Company is 100% owned by a Belize entity, BT Trading Limited (BT Trading). BT Trading
is a holding company; it carries out no substantive business activity in its own right. BT Trading
is not regulated.

10.

BT Trading also has a 100% shareholding in BT Prime Limited (BT Prime) which is a company
based in Bermuda. BT Prime is not regulated.

11.

Since their incorporation, the Company and BT Prime (the Prime Companies) have
outsourced the vast majority of their activities. Originally, this was to a Corporation
incorporated in Delaware, Boston Technologies, Inc. (Boston Technologies). Boston
Technologies was not and is not regulated; it provides software, services and trading platforms
to institutional and retail brokerage firms specialising in foreign exchange. I was the Chief
Executive Officer of Boston Technologies until July 2014.

12.

When the Company was trading (i.e. until 26 January 2015) it only had two employees of its
own working from its London office: one who dealt with customer onboarding (i.e. dealing
with the process of taking on new customers) and one who dealt with sales. This was partly
due to the requirements of the FCA to have employees in the FCAs jurisdiction. Otherwise,
whilst customers contracted with the Company (and sometimes also with Boston
Technologies), almost all of the Companys functions were in fact provided by Boston
Technologies (and later on by Forexware, as described in more detail below). In addition to
this, Boston Technologies also dealt with all of the Companys back office functions,
including, for example, its internal accounting processes and human resources.

13.

In essence, the Company was the regulated public face of the brokerage business, whilst
Boston Technologies (and later Forexware) carried out all the necessary support functions to
enable the Company to trade.

14.

A copy of the original licence agreement entered into between the Company and Boston
Technologies on 9 February 2011 in order to effect this arrangement is exhibited to this
statement at pages 6 to 25 of GAP1 (the Original Licence Agreement).

The sale to Forexware

15.

On 14 June 2014 (although the deal was only finalised on 11 July 2014), a multinational group
of companies including Forexware LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Forexware

UK 204833007.1

Malta Holdings Limited, a Maltese Limited Liability Company (collectively known as

Forexware) agreed to purchase all of the assets of Boston Technologies and other related
companies, including the Company (although the Company would only be acquired after the
satisfaction of various pre-conditions, as described further below) (the Original Purchase).
16.

As a result of this, and given the extent to which the Prime Companies outsourced their
functions to Boston Technologies, Forexware effectively acquired everything that allowed the
Prime Companies to operate, including the employees of Boston Technologies who had
worked for Boston Prime, Boston Technologies technology and goodwill. Forexware also took
an assignment of the Original Licence Agreement (as amended). A copy of the assignment
agreement, dated 11 July 2014 is at pages 26 to 43 of GAP1.

17.

In effect, therefore, Forexware stepped into the shoes of Boston Technologies.

18.

On 11 July 2014, the terms of the Original Purchase were amended and restated. A copy of the
amended and restated purchase agreement is exhibited at pages 44 to 117 of GAP1 (the Sale
Agreement).

19.

As can be seen from Section 4 of the Sale Agreement, there were certain conditions that
needed to be met before the part of the sale that would have seen the acquisition of the
Company could complete (Sale Pre-conditions).

20.

It was originally intended that the Sale Pre-conditions would be met within a few months.
However, at the time of writing they remain unresolved and the sale of the Company has
consequently not completed.

21.

In the meantime, and pending resolution of the Sale Pre-conditions, Forexware has effectively
taken over the management of the Prime Companies. Given the Sale Agreement, I took the
view that this was a practical way forward, particularly given the fact that Forexware was
effectively standing in the shoes of Boston Technologies, which had originally managed the
day-to-day running of the Company. I therefore allowed Forexware to run the Companys
business, although I have remained the Companys sole director.

22.

I myself became an employee of Forexware LLC, working as that companys Head of Strategy,
until my employment was terminated on 5 February 2015.

UK 204833007.1

23.

Since July 2014, pending completion of the sale, I have had very little visibility of the
management / financial position of the Company. The Companys two employees in London
had roles that were sales-oriented, not to do with the management of the Company. The
former employees of Boston Technologies, who would, in the past, have answered to me in
relation to the Companys affairs, are now employees of Forexware (although some of them
were dismissed on 5 February 2015). Despite repeated requests (see for example the exchange
of emails between me and Forexware on 1 December 2014, at pages 118 to 119 of Exhibit
GAP1), until very recently I have been shown very little up-to-date financial / management
information for the Company by Forexware.

24.

I have notified Forexware of my intention to place the Company into an insolvency process
(see for example, the copy of my email to them of 29 January 2015 exhibited at page 120 of
GAP11). Since then, Mike Rollings, one of the proposed administrators, also sent an email to
Forexware on 4 February 2015 (page 121 of GAP1), explaining that an application to place the
Company into special administration was being prepared. Neither I nor Mr Rollings have heard
anything further from Forexware in this regard; Forexware have raised no objections to the
application of which I am aware. My impression is that they would like to wash their hands
of the Company.

Spike in the value of the Swiss Franc

25.

On 15 January 2015, the Swiss National Bank announced that it was removing its cap on the
value of the Swiss Franc of 1.20 Francs per Euro. As was widely reported at the time, this led to
an immediate surge in the value of the Swiss Franc, by up to more than 30%. A copy of an
article from the BBC news internet site from 15 January 2015 reporting this event is exhibited
to this witness statement at pages 122 to 123 of GAP1.

26.

This spike in the Swiss Francs value has had a catastrophic effect on many companies involved
in foreign exchange trading. Indeed, on 19 January 2015, the High Court made a Special
Administration Order in relation to Alpari (UK) Limited, which I understand from Alparis
website was precipitated by the Swiss National Banks change in stance.

In that email, I used the term liquidate, which I am informed is not the correct term for a special administration, but I hope
that my meaning was clear.

UK 204833007.1

27.

For the reasons set out above, and as described below, my access to financial / management
information in relation to the Company has been limited in recent months. However, it seems
clear to me that the rapid increase in value of the Swiss Franc has significantly destabilised the
Company.

28.

As a broker, the Company should be risk transparent as between its customers on the one
hand and its liquidity provider (in this case another Forexware company) on the other. The
broker should just act as a pass through for trades. Each order placed by a customer ought to
be simply passed through to the liquidity provider. Similarly, any liability to a customer should
be matched by a debt owed to the Company by the liquidity provider and vice versa.

29.

I have been unable to ascertain precisely what has happened in the wake of the Swiss National
Banks decision. However, it appears that some customers are disputing the rates at which
Forexware is claiming that their trades are carried out. This leaves the Company in a difficult
position between Forexware, who are claiming sums due from the Company, and the
customers who dispute that such sums are in fact due. An example of a customer
communication disputing Forexwares calculations is exhibited at pages 124 to 129 of GAP1.
The customer in question states what your firm is claiming is total nonsense and I consider
this adjustment criminal.

30.

It seems to me that understanding what has happened will require a forensic analysis of the
Companys affairs. This cannot be undertaken in the present circumstances, and is one of the
factors that leads me to conclude that the appointment of a special administrator over the
Company is required.

Concerns raised by former employees

31.

Former employees of Boston Technologies, who used to work for the Company and answer to
me, but who now work for Forexware (or did work for Forexware until their employment was
terminated on 5 February 2015, as happened to some former employees), began to alert me
to their concerns about the solvency of the Company on or around 22 January 2015. Since
then I have been trying, with varying degrees of success, to obtain financial / management
information about the Company.

UK 204833007.1

32.

By 25 January 2015, the information supplied by these former employees (about customer
liabilities, the Companys debt and money transferred out of the Companys accounts) led me
to the conclusion that the Prime Companies liabilities, which they had insufficient funds to
cover, amounted to US$15 16 million. This was a first estimate and, as set out below, I have
since obtained better information about the Companys financial position.

33.

I would prefer not to go into detail about the information supplied to me by employees as I am
conscious that they were, in a sense, whistleblowing on their own employer.

34.

I was sufficiently convinced by the information I received from the former employees that I
decided that I had to take immediate action, both as a director of the Company and as an
individual authorised by the FCA.

Contacting the FCA, announcement on website, termination of employee contracts, vacation of

premises
35.

On the evening of Sunday 25 January 2015, I sent an email to the Companys contact at the
FCA, Chris Barrington, setting out my concerns. A copy of the text of my email is exhibited to
this statement at pages 130 to 133 of GAP 1.

36.

I also asked an employee of Forexware (who used to work for Boston Technologies and was
therefore prepared to follow my instructions) to change the Companys website so that it
would display the following message (a screenshot of the website is exhibited at page 134 of
GAP1):
This morning, January 26 2015, Boston Prime Ltd., a UK FCA regulated firm, has
disabled all trading services as a result of negative balances following SNB
announcement on January 15, 2015.
Boston Prime has reported the current financial insolvency to the FCA.
More information will be provided as it becomes available.

37.

Partly as a result of this announcement, the Company has received a large number of queries
from extremely concerned customers.

UK 204833007.1

38.

On 26 January 2015, I also took the decision to terminate the employment contracts of the
Companys two employees. I believe that their pay is fully up-to-date, although, as with most
other matters, the Company is entirely reliant on Forexware to carry out all Human Resources
functions. As set out further below, I believe that the Company has outstanding liabilities to
HMRC in respect of the employees tax.

39.

Also on 26 January 2015, I took the decision to vacate the Companys London offices. The
landlord has indicated to me that he will retain the Companys security deposit, but I felt that it
was important not to incur any further liabilities in this regard.

The FCAs response and the variation of the Companys permissions under FSMA
40.

On or around 28 January 2015, I engaged Rollings Oliver LLP (Rollings Oliver) to advise the
Company. Rollings Oliver, in turn, instructed CMS Cameron McKenna LLP (CMS) to assist
them.

41.

Rollings Oliver and CMS entered into discussions with the FCA about the Company. One of the
outcomes of this process was that the FCA asked the Company to take steps to protect its
clients. One suggestion from the FCA was that the Company should voluntarily apply to the
FCA for a variation of its permissions under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act
2000 (FSMA), pursuant to section 55(L)(5) of FSMA (the VREQ). I made this application on
behalf of the Company on 30 January 2015. It was accepted on the same day by the FCA.

42.

A copy of the VREQ is exhibited to this statement at pages 135 to 136 of GAP1. As can be seen,
the effect on the Companys business of the VREQ (which is primarily designed to protect
customer interests) is dramatic. In broad summary terms, the Company is now:
a) effectively prohibited from carrying on regulated activities;
b) effectively prohibited from dealing with client money (without the consent of the FCA);
and
c) required not to dispose of, deal with or act in any way that would diminish the value of
any of its assets without the prior written consent of the FCA.

43.

On the evening of 30 January 2015, I sent copies of the VREQ to all of the Companys banks,
with the following covering email:

UK 204833007.1

Please find attached a voluntary application which the Company, Boston Prime
Limited, has made for its current permissions under Part 4Aof the Financial Services
and Markets Act 2000 to be varied. The terms of the letter are self-explanatory but in
particular we would ask you to note Requirement 3 of the attached letter
which(amongst other things) means that no payments can be made out of the
Companys account without the permission of the FCA.
The only payment we currently have asked the FCA to consent to the Company
paying is a payment for 100,000 to be made to Rollings Oliver LLP. We will revert to
you as soon as we have received that consent.
Please do contact me if you would like to discuss.
44.

It can therefore be seen that, as a result of the Companys interactions with the FCA:
a) the Company is no longer in a position to trade; and
b) the Companys bank accounts are, in effect, frozen.

The Companys current financial position

45.

As set out above, since the Sale Agreement was entered into, I have been given very little
financial / management information in relation to the Company by Forexware.

46.

On 14 September 2014, I received the Companys accounts for the period ending 31 July 2014.
The balance sheet is at pages 137 to 139 of GAP1 and shows total assets after the deduction of
total liabilities of 453,902.93 (i.e. that the Company was solvent at that stage).

47.

I believe that in the same month (in any event, I have subsequently received a copy), I also
received the spreadsheet exhibited at pages 140 to 144 of GAP1, which shows that, at the end
of August 2014, the Company had total assets of US$17,296,519.12 and total current liabilities
of US$16,435,942.10 (i.e. net assets of US$860,577.02) (N.B. the numbers in this spreadsheet
are given in US dollars, rather than sterling). From this it appears that the company was still
solvent at this stage.

48.

On 30 January 2015, I received the most up-to-date, formally prepared accounts for the
Company that I have, which are for the period ending 30 September 2014 (the balance sheet is

UK 204833007.1

exhibited at pages 145 to 147 of GAP1). Again, these accounts indicate that the Company was
still solvent at the end of September last year, with total assets less current liabilities of
1,025,189.86 (or US$1,665,010.85).
49.

I do not know what has happened to the Companys financial affairs since September 2014 and
I anticipate that it will take some forensic accountancy work to establish what has gone wrong.
However, for the reasons set out below, I consider that something has gone seriously wrong
and that the Company is now insolvent.

50.

In the last week or so, and given the involvement of the FCA, I have received slightly more cooperation from Forexware (or at least from certain of its employees), which has day-to-day
control of the Companys affairs. (Although, as an aside, and as the notice exhibited at page
148 of GAP1 (circulated to Forexware staff on 3 February 2015) demonstrates, Forexware is
also now tightly controlling any communications regarding the Company).

51.

In anticipation of making this application, I asked Forexware for up-to-date management

accounts to be prepared, but I have been informed that this will not be possible for a number
of weeks.

52.

Given that amongst other things: (i) the Company is currently unable to trade; (ii) the
Companys bank accounts are effectively frozen; (iii) it appears, and has been announced on
the Companys website, that the Company is insolvent (a fact that seems to have been picked
up by most if not all of the Companys customers); and (iv) the Company has vacated its
London premises and its employees employment contracts have been terminated, I did not
think that it would be appropriate to wait a matter of weeks for management accounts to be
produced.

53.

In the circumstances, I have worked with Rollings Oliver, using information that has been
supplied by Forexware (or at least by its employees), to produce the estimated statement of
financial position as at 2 February 2015 (although I have no reason to believe that the position
will have changed since), a copy of which is exhibited at page 149 of GAP1. As can be seen, I
estimate that the Company has a current deficit of in the region of 7.4 million or US$11.1
million.

UK 204833007.1

54.

The estimated statement of financial position was put together using the following financial
information, which was supplied to me by employees of Forexware:
a) The spreadsheet showing cash balances of the Companys bank accounts (as well as
those of BT Prime) exhibited at page 150 of GAP1. As can be seen, these show a balance
in the Companys accounts (including client monies (described as Trustee Money) of
US$900,344.49) as at 30 January 2015 of US$6,850,359.22. Taking into account the
client money balance, therefore, this leaves the Company with US$5,950,014.72 of nonclient money.
b) The snapshots of the Companys bank accounts exhibited at pages 151 to 156 of
GAP1, which corroborate the information in the spreadsheet in subparagraph (a) above.
c) The spreadsheet exhibited to this statement at pages 157 to 160 of GAP1, which shows
debts owed to the Company by its customers of US$3,343,360.73 (which it is far from
clear will be recoverable), but, more importantly, debts owed by Company to its
customers of US$17,768,318.93.
d) The spreadsheet exhibited to this statement at page 161 of GAP1, which shows a debt
owing from a Forexware company to the Company of US$22,772.27 and a debt due to
another Forexware company by the Company of US$278,614.69.
e) The statement from Boston Technologies exhibited to this statement at pages 162 to
163 of GAP1, which shows a liability of the Company to Forexware of US$149,157. This
should relate to the same liability as that dealt with at subparagraph (d) above. The two
numbers are different, so for the purposes of the estimated statement of financial
position, the larger liability described in subparagraph (d) above was used. In any event,
it seems to me that the difference between the numbers is immaterial given the
US$17.7 million dollar liability to the Companys customers.

55.

From this estimated statement of financial positon, which is, I believe, the most accurate
picture that can be given of the Companys financial affairs at this time, as well as the situation
in which the Company currently finds itself, it seems clear to me that the Companys liabilities
exceed its assets.

UK 204833007.1

56.

I am also firmly of the view that, if it is not yet already in this position, the Company will shortly
become unable to pay its debts as they fall due. This is partly a practical function of the de
facto freezing of the Companys accounts.

57.

As an illustration of this point, on 2 February 2015, I received a copy of an email from ADP, the
company that deals with paying the Companys UK payroll. This email informed me that the
Company has a liability to HMRC of 3,728.57 as well as a liability to ADP itself of 144. Whilst
these sums are relatively trivial, I cannot see that there is any prospect of the Company being
in a position to pay them. The Company cannot diminish its assets in any way without the
consent of the FCA. Given the uncertainty surrounding the Companys finances, the Companys
position more generally and the FCAs desire to protect client assets held by the Company, I
cannot see how the FCA would agree to the Company making such payments.

58.

As a further illustration of the immediate financial difficulties faced by the Company, copies of
communications Rollings Oliver have received from the Companys customers demanding the
return of their funds are exhibited to this statement at pages 164 to 206 of GAP1. Given the
VREQ, and the Companys financial position more generally, the Company is currently unable
to comply with these demands, despite the fact that they are made in connection with the
Companys regulated activities. I am informed that, for the purposes of the Investment Bank
Special Administration Regulations 2011 (the Regulations) (regulation 2(4)(a)), this is
evidence of the Companys inability to pay its debts.

The grounds for this application

59.

I am informed by CMS that, under the Regulations, there are two possible grounds on which it
is possible for the director(s) of a company to apply for a special administration order:
a) Ground A is that the investment bank is, or is likely to become, unable to pay its debts;
and
b) Ground B is that it would be fair to put the investment bank into special administration.

60.

As I have set out above, I believe that the Company is insolvent both because its liabilities
exceed its assets and because it is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. It would appear that
the Company is also considered to be unable to pay its debts pursuant to regulation 2(4)(a)
of the Regulations. I therefore consider that Ground A is met.

UK 204833007.1

61.

As to Ground B, I cannot see any realistic option for the Company other than to go into special
administration (or another insolvency process). The Company is or will inevitably become
unable to pay its debts (a fact which has been announced to the world at large), it has vacated
its London premises and sent its employees home, its business and its bank accounts have
been frozen as a result of the VREQ, and it would seem that the Company must now go into an
insolvency process. As I understand it, the special administration regime has been specifically
designed to deal with the insolvencies of companies such as the Company, and in particular, to
ensure that client assets are returned as quickly as possible.

Proposed special administrators

62.

It is proposed that Michael David Rollings and Steven Edward Butt of Rollings Oliver LLP should
be appointed special administrators of the Company.

63.

For the purposes of Rule 8(3)(e) of the Investment Bank Special Administration (England and
Wales) Rules 2011 (the Rules), it is intended that the functions of a special administrator in
relation to the Company shall be exercisable by either or both of them, whether acting jointly
or severally.

Security
64.

I do not believe that there are any charges or other security over the Companys assets. Page
207 of GAP1 is a print-off from the Companies House website, showing that no security has
been registered against the Companys assets.

Client assets held by the Company

65.

As matters stand, on the information that I have received from Forexware, I believe that the
Company holds US$900,344.49 of client assets, as such term is used by the FCA. All of those
assets are, in fact, client money. However, the client asset situation will require further
investigation following the appointment of any special administrators.

Urgency
66.

As set out above, a notice has been on the Companys website since 26 January 2015,
announcing that the Company is insolvent.

UK 204833007.1

67.

Since 30 January 2015, the VREQ has been in place, which has frozen the Companys business
and assets.

68.

The communications exhibited to this statement at pages 164 to 206 of GAP1 are testament to
the extreme concern of the customers of the Company.

69.

I have tried in this statement to set out the Companys position to the best of my knowledge
and ability. However, due to the fact that since July 2014 the day-to-day running of the
Company has been handled by Forexware, I am acutely aware that there are gaps in my
knowledge of the Companys affairs and real practical obstacles that prevent me from
understanding (let alone controlling) the Companys situation.

70.

In my view, and for the reasons set out above, a crisis point has been reached. In order to
protect client assets, customers and creditors, the Companys affairs need to be taken over as
soon as is practicable by a special administrator.

Notice / service of the application

71.

I have been informed by CMS that it is necessary to give notice of this application to and / or to
serve copies of this application on:
a) the proposed special administrators; and
b) the FCA.

72.

Exhibited at page 208 of GAP1 is a copy of a letter sent to the Company by the proposed
special administrators. The court will note that the proposed special administrators have
waived their right to be served with the application.

73.

Exhibited at page 209 of GAP1 is a copy of an email sent by the FCA to CMS, acknowledging the
notice given to it of the application to appoint special administrators. It is to be noted that the
FCA:
a)

raise no objection to the application being heard as soon as reasonably practicable;

and

b) do not propose to exercise our right to be heard at the hearing pursuant to regulation
5(2) of the 2011 regulations.
UK 204833007.1

74.

As far as I am aware, no persons other than the proposed special administrators are entitled to
be served with a copy of the Application under Rule 10(1) of the Investment Bank Special
Administration (England and Wales) Rules 2011. I am not aware of anyone having given notice
to the FCA under Regulation 8 or of there being a voluntary arrangement in force for the
Company under Part 1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Centre of Main Interests

75.

The Companys registered office is, and always has been, in England. Whilst, the Companys
business is, by its very nature, international, one of the key attractions for the Companys
customers has historically been that it is regulated by the FCA. This was (and is) made clear on
the Companys website, which states that it is a UK FCA regulated firm.

76.

A copy of the Companys Prime Brokerage standard terms and conditions is exhibited at pages
210 to 230 of GAP1. As can be seen, at the top of the first page, it is stated that the Company:
is a company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and Wales (UK)
with an office at 1 Ropemaker ST, Citypoint Suite 1248, UK EC2Y 9HT.

77.

The governing law and jurisdiction clause of the standard terms and conditions is stated to be
that of THE UNITED KINGDOM AND WALES (the UK).

78.

Whilst the management functions of the Company have not been exercised within this
jurisdiction, its clients and other third parties would not have been aware of that. So far as
they will have been concerned, the Company is an English incorporated, FCA regulated
company operating from its address in London.

79.

For those reasons I believe that the Companys Centre of Main Interests is in England.

Litigation relating to Boston Technologies

80.

For the sake of completeness, I inform the Court that I have been involved in litigation in
relation to shareholdings in both Boston Technologies and BT Trading (in New York and Belize).
In both instances, claims have been brought against me by a fellow shareholder, Kevin Millien.
Copies of the claims that were brought are appended to this statement at pages 231 to 286 of
GAP1.

UK 204833007.1

81.

The claim in New York, in relation to Boston Technologies, has been resolved.

82.

The claim in Belize, in relation to BT Trading is ongoing.

83.

The Company is not a party to Mr Milliens claims.

84.

I do not consider that this litigation is relevant to the question of what should now happen to
the Company. As set out above, the Company, which is not a party to the litigation, urgently
needs to be put into an insolvency process. In any event, the appointment of an independent
Special Administrator over the Companys affairs can only serve to protect the interests of any
third parties who may have an interest, whether directly or indirectly in the Companys affairs.

Request for a special administration order

85.

In the circumstances and for the reasons set out in this statement, it is respectfully requested
that the Court make the order sought.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

.
George Alex Popescu
Dated 6 February 2015

UK 204833007.1

Applicant
G A Popescu
1st Witness Statement
6 February 2015
Exhibit GAP1

CASE NO.

OF 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

COMPANIES COURT

IN THE MATTER OF BOSTON PRIME LIMITED

AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTMENT BANK
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS 2011

WITNESS STATEMENT OF
GEORGE ALEX POPESCU

UK 201047483.1

CMS Cameron McKenna LLP

Mitre House
160 Aldersgate Street
London EC1A 4DD

T +44(0)20 7367 3000

F +44(0)20 7367 2000
Ref: RAL/WIOC/133719.00002

Solicitors for the Applicant

18
UK 201047483.1

Applicant
G A Popescu
1st Witness Statement
6 February 2015
Exhibit GAP1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

No.

OF 2015

CHANCERY DIVISION

COMPANIES COURT

IN THE MATTER OF BOSTON PRIME LIMITED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTMENT BANK SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS 2011

EXHIBIT GAP1

This is the exhibit marked GAP1 referred to in the witness statement of George Alex Popescu dated
this 6th day of February 2015.

..
George Alex Popescu
19
UK 201047483.1

6 February 2015

20
UK 201047483.1