Guavapay Enters Compulsory Liquidation later than FCA Action and Mastercard Petition

What Led to Guavapay’s Collapse?

London-based fintech Guavapay has been placed into compulsory liquidation following a UK High Court winding-up order, bringing an end to a payments business that had faced mounting regulatory and creditor pressure for months. The order follows a winding-up petition filed by Mastercard, one of the company’s largest creditors, and comes later than the Financial Conduct Authority imposed restrictions on Guavapay’s UK operations.

The payments firm, founded in 2017, was authorised by the FCA as an electronic money institution, allowing it to issue e-money and provide services such as digital wallets, multi-currency accounts, and card-based payments. Through its MyGuava platform, the company positioned itself as a low-cost serving both retail and business customers.

That model depended heavily on uninterrupted access to global card networks. When settlement obligations linked to those relationships came under strain, Guavapay’s position rapidly fragileened.

Investor Takeaway

Why Mastercard’s Petition Proved Decisive

In mid-November 2025, Mastercard filed a winding-up petition against Guavapay in the High Court, citing unpaid debts tied to settlement and scheme obligations. People familiar with the matter said the claim exceeded £10 million, including fees and principal amounts. The case was heard in January 2026.

In the payments industry, settlement failures are treated as a red line. Card networks require members to pre-fund or settle transactions promptly to protect the wider system. When a participant shows signs it cannot meet those obligations, counterparties may act rapidly to limit exposure.

For Guavapay, the petition arrived later than months of visible strain. By the time the court hearing took place, the firm’s ability to trade through its UK entity had already been sharply reduced by regulatory action.

How FCA Restrictions fragileened the Business

In September 2025, the FCA agreed a voluntary requirement with Guavapay that effectively suspended key parts of its UK operations. The regulator cited “significant challenges” related to fraudulent activity and concerns around the company’s financial crime controls.

Under the arrangement, Guavapay was required to stop onboarding new customers and limit certain payment activities. Existing customers retained partial access, but the restrictions curtailed transaction volumes at a time when liabilities and operating costs were rising.

Such intervention is uncommon and usually reflects deep supervisory concern rather than a narrow compliance breach. For a payments firm reliant on flow and scale, the loss of new business proved destabilising, leaving little room to absorb external shocks.

Investor Takeaway

Founder Exit and Ownership Structure

Days before the High Court hearing on Mastercard’s petition, founder and chief executive Orkhan Nasibov resigned as a director. A company spokesperson said the decision was due to “fatigue and health-related reasons.” Nasibov had led Guavapay since launch and was closely tied to its strategy and operations.

Guavapay remained founder-owned throughout its life and did not raise external venture capital. While that structure allowed independence during growth, it left the firm without institutional backers or additional balance-sheet support once regulatory pressure and creditor claims intensified.

Without access to fresh capital or regulatory relief, the company had limited options as the court process advanced.

What Compulsory Liquidation Means for Customers

On 21 January 2026, the High Court issued a winding-up order placing Guavapay into compulsory liquidation. An Official Receiver from the as liquidator, taking control from the company’s directors.

The liquidator’s role is to gather assets, assess creditor claims, and distribute recoveries under insolvency law. Customer funds will be returned where possible, but the FCA has warned that balances held with Guavapay are not protected by the .

That reflects Guavapay’s status as an e-money institution rather than a bank. While EMIs must , insolvency can still result in delays or shortfalls depending on how those funds are held and recovered.

What the Case Says About UK Fintech Risk

Guavapay’s failure adds to a growing struggling under tighter supervision, higher compliance costs, and fragileer funding conditions. The case highlights how rapidly pressure can build when regulatory findings intersect with creditor action.