{"issue_text":"Whether personal guarantees required exchange control permission","issue_type":"legal","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Guarantees denominated in foreign currency, defendants' offshore assets"}
{"issue_text":"Whether defendants held out Barato's ability to repay","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Loan installments schedule, representations about repayment sources"}
{"issue_text":"Whether repayment was to be solely from dividends and security","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Dividend payments, loan agreement terms, default on installments"}
{"issue_text":"Whether third defendant is bound by his signature","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Sachikonye's testimony about signing, document heading"}
{"issue_text":"Whether plaintiff has been repaid in full","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Share sale proceeds, dividend receipts, outstanding balance"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
A UAE company advanced a US$2.2 million loan to Barato Holdings Ltd, secured by Ariston shares and personal guarantees from three directors. When Barato defaulted, the plaintiff sold the shares and claimed the shortfall of US$1.56 million from the guarantors, who defended on grounds of exchange control violations and inadequate security value.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases