In the recent UK case of Williams v Glover & Anor, the Court considered the novel issue of whether the right to appeal against a tax liability constitutes the "property" of a company in liquidation, in deciding whether such a right was assignable or not. In that case, the applicant liquidator sought directions as to whether it could assign the right to appeal against an assessment of tax liability to the respondent former directors of the company in liquidation. Judge Pelling QC held that while there were authorities that had considered this point, they were not binding.

In Carillion Construction Ltd v Hussain, the English High Court held that the withdrawal of letters of support given by a parent company to the directors of its subsidiary was not a transaction defrauding creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK).

In what seems to be an unrelenting trend, new figures released this month by the British Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA), have disclosed that 30 of the top-200 UK law firms are in serious financial difficulty and have entered into "intensive engagement" with the SRA. While no names were named, it was revealed that these firms were among a wider group of 400 UK firms that were under active management by the regulator.

The UK Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the following tests for whether a company is unable to pay its debts (as set out in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986):

• The company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (the "cash-flow test") and
• The value of a company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities (the "balance-sheet test").

The Supreme Court confirmed that:

This corporate update summarises certain decisions in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court relating to the balance sheet insolvency test, agreements to agree and the exercise of contractual discretion. The decisions clarify the law in a number of areas of day-to-day relevance.

UK BALANCE SHEET INSOLVENCY TEST: Implications for lenders and borrowers

Background

Comfort letters can be a useful tool for providing an assurance of support from a parent to a subsidiary company. In some cases they help inform the decision of the board of a subsidiary and its continuing trade. It's possible for such letters to form binding obligations in law, if carefully considered and drafted.

So Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc (Eurosail) is not ‘balance sheet’ insolvent, no event of default has occurred under the RMBS notes it has issued and a post-enforcement call option (PECO) does not make limited recourse any of the notes it relates to.

The English Supreme Court’s eagerly awaited decision on the Eurosail litigation, concerning how the “balance sheet” test for insolvency should be applied, was released today. The decision clarifies how courts should apply the balance sheet test, and what circumstances and facts must be taken into account in doing so.

Balance sheet test must take into account commercial context of company

Introduction

The UK Supreme Court judgment in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC [2013] UKSC 28 was handed down on 9 May 2013. It considered: (a) the meaning of the balance sheet insolvency test as laid out in section 123(2) of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act"); and (b) the legal effect of a post-enforcement call option ("PECO") and, in particular, whether the existence of a PECO is relevant to an assessment of balance sheet insolvency.

Nearly three years after the High Court decision on the case of BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail UK 2007 – 3BL PLC and others was handed down, the case has run its course in the Supreme Court. The case, which considers the correct interpretation of the balance-sheet insolvency test in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, is of importance to insolvency practitioners, financial institutions, legal advisers, company directors and companies.  

Court of Appeal decision