Investors or companies may, as part of their wider investment thesis or business plan, make distressed asset purchases to strategically acquire assets which they may otherwise not be able to conveniently or affordably obtain. While the face value of the asset purchased may be lower than that acquired in a “solvent” transaction, purchasers should be aware that such acquisitions carry a heavy tail liability risk, which may take the form of a potential clawback as a transaction at an undervalue.
The case of SBP 2 S.À.R.L v 2 Southbank Tenant Limited [2025] EWHC 16 (Ch) highlights the importance of careful drafting and robust legal advice when looking to forfeit a lease.
Background
The Supreme Court has confirmed that s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides for the avoidance of certain transactions where they have been entered into for the purpose of defrauding creditors, has a broad application and covers not only transactions entered into by the debtor personally, but also those entered into via the debtor's company: El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4.
Introduction
Insolvency is a critical financial state that affects both individuals and businesses worldwide. It occurs when a person or organization can no longer meet its financial obligations as they fall due or when liabilities exceed assets. Understanding insolvency is vital to navigate financial challenges effectively and develop strategies for recovery.
Types of Insolvency
1. Cash Flow Insolvency
A recent decision of the Court of Session has found that a Scottish administration can be declared as ancillary to an insolvency process in another jurisdiction. This means that the insolvency proceedings in one jurisdiction are considered as the main insolvency proceedings, while the ancillary proceedings in the other jurisdiction are restricted to dealing with the company's assets located there.
Background
Welcome to our latest quarterly bulletin which contains updates on commercial litigation developments over the past three months, largely by reference to articles posted to our Litigation Notes blog in that period. Other posts are available on the blog, which you can visit any time. Or subscribe to be notified of the latest updates: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/litigation.
"The law on 'knowing receipt' has perplexed judges and academics alike for several decades" – Lord Burrows (paragraph 99).
The Abu Dhabi Global Market (the “ADGM”) courts have recently handed down their decision in NMC Healthcare Limited & Others v Shetty & Others ([2024] ADGMCFI 0007). The decision deals with several important principles in relation to fraudulent/wrongful trading liabilities under ADGM law. Given the ADGM re-domiciliation (or continuation) regime, enabling companies incorporated elsewhere to be redomiciled to ADGM with relative ease, the decision is likely to be of interest beyond the borders of the ADGM.
Seven years after the British Home Stores Group Limited, a well known high street retailer, and its operating subsidiaries entered liquidation, the High Court has found two former directors liable for wrongful trading and misfeasance.
Background
FRP Advisory Trading Limited won the United Kingdom's largest-ever wrongful trading claim and successfully established the first "misfeasance trading" claim against former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS"), highlighting the critical responsibilities of directors managing financially troubled company assets.