Investment management company had sole discretion to vary termination date of fund

Plaintiff's claim damages for losses suffered as a result of alleged mis-selling by the first defendant of a geared property fund investment product which was an investment office property in London ("the property") - plaintiffs claim that the second named defendant was in breach of its contractual duty and/or duty of care by failing to structure the borrowings so as to give the defendants a real discretion to extend the loan at the end of the term and also by disposing the property in July 2013 - plaintiffs are representative of 214 investors - both plaintiffs invested in the fund in August 2007 - first named plaintiff had previous experience in geared investment funds - the intended term of the fund was five years, with 68% provided by a non-recourse loan from a financial institution that was the sister company of the defendant ("the financial institution") - the board of the defendants had initially approved a loan term of seven years, but this was reduced by the defendant to a term of five years - repayment date of the loan was defined as being five years from the drawdown date - granting of an extension was at the sole discretion of the lender - the defendant completed the purchase of the property for £39,676,947 including costs - in mid 2010, the tenant of the property experienced banking problems - defendant met with the managing director of the tenant who had proposals which were to consider cancelling the lease, calling in the guarantee and a rent reduction - none of these proposals were acceptable to the defendant - in July 2011, the financial institution was taken over by the Department of Finance who decided to put the property on the market - in May 2012 the property was put on the market and in February 2013 the defendants received a formal offer for the property - in July 2013, the board of the defendant ratified the decision to sell the property for £27.975 million - the financial institution therefore had its loan repaid in full and the defendants did not suffer any financial loss - plaintiff's losses arise from the sale in 2013 - plaintiff's say that the property could have been held until 2014, at which point the plaintiff's say that they would have recovered or substantially recovered their investments - banking expert giving evidence for the defendants stated that before the global financial crisis, there was huge demand for risk from customers - factual matrix by which the parties agreed their contracts in 2007 operated on basis that refinancing would be available at the end of the expected term of the fund - no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs that the defendants could have obtained a loan with an express right to extend the repayment date or a seven-year loan with a five-year investment term - defendant's banking expert had never heard of a seven-year loan for a five-year investment term - the generally held assumption in 2007, that refinance would be available at the end of a geared property fund's investment term, no longer applied after the market crashed - the decision to sell was dictated by market conditions and the financial institution requiring the protection of the State - defendant, in the exercise of its contractual discretion to terminate before or after the expected five years, did all it reasonably could in the circumstances to get the best outcome for investors and the plaintiffs in particular - defendants did not breach their duty to the plaintiffs in contract or tort - plaintiffs understood that their investment was a geared property fund in which the bulk of the funding was provided by a loan secured on a single illiquid asset - plaintiff's knew that the property was high risk and that if the value of the property fell by 32% they could lose all of their investment - first named plaintiff knew from his experience that the investment term matched the term of the loan and that the market in geared property funds operated on the assumption of refinancing being available at maturity if required - first named plaintiff knew there was no express right to extend the loan terms - none of the plaintiffs enquired about the property's loan term in 2007 - the plaintiffs would have invested knowing there was no express right to extend the loan and must conclude their assertions to the contrary are based on hindsight - plaintiff's claim dismissed.