NMC Healthcare’s administrators accuse founder Dr B.R. Shetty and former chief executive Prasanth Manghat of fraud and of fraudulent and wrongful trading in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Courts. They claim $5.4B, and both men deny wrongdoing. The trial ended on July 3, 2026, with judgment reserved, after co-defendant Bank of Baroda settled for $600M without admitting liability.
Latest development Jul 3, 2026
On July 3, 2026, the trial of the administrators’ claims against Shetty and Manghat in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Courts ended, and Justice Sir Andrew Smith reserved judgment. Bank of Baroda, the third defendant, is no longer part of the trial after settling for $600M without admitting liability.
Why it matters
A judgment would decide whether NMC’s founder and former chief executive are personally liable for losses that the administrators put above $5B. It would also apply Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) fraudulent and wrongful trading rules to conduct from before the companies moved into the ADGM.
Background
NMC Health, a former FTSE 100 company, collapsed in 2020. A December 2019 report by short seller Muddy Waters questioned its accounts, and a later investigation uncovered $6.6B of debt. AGBI describes NMC as having been the UAE’s largest private healthcare company. Richard Fleming and Benjamin Cairns of Alvarez & Marsal became joint administrators of NMC Healthcare Ltd and NMC Holding Ltd in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM). In 2022, the administrators sued founder Dr B.R. Shetty, former chief executive Prasanth Manghat, and Bank of Baroda in the ADGM Courts.
A parallel claim by NMC Health PLC’s administrators in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales was stayed pending the Abu Dhabi case. The administrators allege that Shetty and Manghat defrauded the company and concealed billions of dollars of debt, and that Bank of Baroda knowingly facilitated the alleged fraud. They also bring fraudulent and wrongful trading claims under the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2022 and put creditor losses above $5B. Shetty denies the allegations and says he was himself the victim of a large-scale fraud, and Manghat denies wrongdoing. In July 2024, the ADGM Court of First Instance ruled that the trading claims can reach conduct from before the companies were continued into the ADGM.
The ADGM Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by Shetty and Bank of Baroda on December 30, 2024. On March 25, 2025, the Court of First Instance resolved disputed points of UAE civil law relevant to the fraudulent trading claims. On November 26, 2025, it lifted an order barring Bank of Baroda from disclosing suspicious transaction reports, holding that the 2025 federal anti-money laundering law permits disclosure with the court’s permission. The trial opened on March 23, 2026, before Justice Sir Andrew Smith and was heard remotely because of the Iran conflict. Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank’s separate fraud claim against Manghat was heard alongside it.
During closing arguments, Bank of Baroda agreed to pay $600M to settle the ADGM and English claims against it, without admitting liability or wrongdoing. It disclosed the settlement on July 2, 2026. The trial ended on July 3, 2026, and judgment on the claims against Shetty and Manghat is reserved. On October 13, 2026, Shetty filed a separate $15B suit in the Bombay High Court against Bank of Baroda and 25 other defendants, including Manghat, alleging forged guarantees and unauthorized transactions. Bank of Baroda says it has not been served and will defend the claim.
Timeline 10 events
-
OtherBank of Baroda says it will defend Shetty’s $15B suit
The bank said it would contest the Bombay High Court suit. It noted that the ADGM Courts had reserved judgment on related fraud and wrongful trading allegations.
Bank of Baroda says it will defend BR Shetty's $15-billion suit, cites dismissed US caseBT Explainer: Why is Bank of Baroda facing a lawsuit from founder of NMC Health, BR Shetty?
-
OtherShetty sues Bank of Baroda and 25 others in Bombay High Court
In a separate $15B suit, Shetty alleged forged guarantees and unauthorized transactions. Bank of Baroda said it had not been served and would defend the claim.
-
HearingTrial ends and Justice Sir Andrew Smith reserves judgment
The claims against Shetty and Manghat remain to be decided.
-
SettlementBank of Baroda settles NMC claims for $600M
The bank disclosed a settlement of the ADGM and English claims against it, reached during closing arguments, without admission of liability or wrongdoing.
-
HearingTrial of the administrators’ claims opens in the ADGM Courts
The trial before Justice Sir Andrew Smith was heard remotely because of the Iran conflict. Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank’s fraud claim against Manghat was heard alongside it.
-
OrderCourt allows disclosure of Bank of Baroda’s suspicious transaction reports
Justice Sir Andrew Smith set aside an earlier 2025 order barring disclosure, holding that the 2025 federal anti-money laundering law permits disclosure made with the court’s permission.
ADGM Courts judgment summary, [2025] ADGMCFI 0029Khaleej Times
-
JudgmentADGM court rules on UAE law issues underlying fraud claims
Justice Sir Andrew Smith issued a judgment resolving disputed points of UAE civil law relevant to the administrators’ fraudulent trading claims against Shetty, Manghat and Bank of Baroda.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE JUDGMENT (Determination of UAE Law issues)
-
AppealADGM Court of Appeal dismisses Shetty and Bank of Baroda appeals
Chief Justice Lord Hope, Justice Kenneth Hayne, and Justice Dame Elizabeth Gloster upheld the orders on the preliminary issues, with costs.
-
JudgmentJustice Sir Andrew Smith rules trading claims can reach earlier conduct
Deciding preliminary issues, the court held that fraudulent and wrongful trading orders can cover business carried on before the companies were continued into the ADGM.
BAILII: [2024] ADGMCFI 0007UAE Legal Notes: [2024] ADGMCA 0001
-
FilingNMC administrators sue Shetty, Manghat, and Bank of Baroda
The joint administrators brought claims in the ADGM Courts and in the High Court in London. The English claim was stayed to await the outcome of the ADGM proceedings.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the ADGM Court of First Instance hold Shetty and Manghat liable on the NMC administrators’ claims by September 30, 2027?
- Shetty and Manghat both found liable52%
- Still pending on September 30, 202724%
- Only one of the two found liable13%
- Claims against both dismissed7%
- Shetty and Manghat settle first4%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2027in 11 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely outcome, at 52%, is a judgment by September 30, 2027, holding both Shetty and Manghat liable on at least one claim. The administrators won every contested preliminary ruling, and Bank of Baroda paid $600 million during closings. The main risk is timing, because a judgment after a three-month trial may take more than a year.
How it resolves. Resolves on public records of the ADGM Courts or reliable press reports. “Both found liable” if a judgment holds both Shetty and Manghat liable on at least one claim (fraud, fraudulent trading, or wrongful trading). “Only one found liable” if a judgment holds one liable and dismisses all claims against the other. “All claims dismissed” if a judgment dismisses every claim against both. If one defendant settles and the judgment decides claims against the other, classify by that judgment alone. “Settlement” if announced settlements resolve the claims against both before any judgment. “Still pending” if none of these has occurred by September 30, 2027. Later appeals do not affect resolution.
Reasoning
Starting point. Reserved first-instance judgments after long civil fraud trials brought by insolvency officeholders in common-law commercial courts: Officeholder fraud claims reaching full trial succeed at least in part in roughly 60-70% of cases. Reserved judgments after multi-month trials usually issue within 6 to 15 months.
Insolvency officeholders who take fraud claims to full trial succeed at least in part about 60-70% of the time, and judgments after trials this long usually arrive within 6 to 15 months. The administrators won the July 2024 preliminary issues, defeated the December 2024 appeals, and obtained disclosure of Bank of Baroda’s suspicious transaction reports. Bank of Baroda’s $600 million settlement during closing arguments, made without admission, signals that a co-defendant priced its trial risk as material. The undisputed collapse after $6.6 billion of debt surfaced, plus layered claims including wrongful trading with a lower fault threshold, makes total dismissal unlikely. A split result is plausible because the two men held different roles and Shetty says he was himself defrauded. Settlement is unlikely given Shetty’s new $15 billion Bombay suit, which shows he intends to keep fighting. The leading alternative is delay, since the trial lasted over three months, ran alongside Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank’s claim, and could produce a judgment of several hundred pages.
Administrators won every contested preliminary ruling and appeal · Bank of Baroda’s $600 million settlement during closings · Length and complexity of reserved judgment drafting · Wrongful trading claims carry a lower fault threshold · Shetty’s Bombay suit signals no appetite to settle
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 18, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made