Tamara Oppenheimer QC, Rebecca Loveridge and Samuel Rabinowitz, Fountain Court Chambers

This is an extract from the fifth edition of GIR's The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations. The whole publication is available here.

36.1 Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.

The new National Security and Investment Bill, which aims to provide the Government with the necessary powers to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions to protect national security, will introduce a mandatory notification regime across 17 sectors in the UK economy. Although the Bill provides a carve-out for rights exercisable by administrators, insolvency practitioners will still need to be mindful of the risks that the Bill may have on distressed M&A transactions, which may be rendered void if captured by the regime and the notification requirements not complied with.

Avoiding a Cliff-edge of Insolvencies? Observations ferom the recent House Of Lords debate on extension of creditior restrictions

The English Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the Debenhams case, on which we acted. A copy of the judgment can be downloaded here. This upholds the decision of the High Court, which followed the earlier decision in Carluccio’s.

The UK's Supreme Court ("UKSC") has handed down its judgment following the hearing of the appeal in the case of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 ("Marex"). The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal to find that the rule of reflective loss applied to 90% of Marex's claim, which was brought in its capacity as a creditor.

The appeal was unanimously allowed by UKSC and it confirmed the rule did not extend to creditors.

A key principle of English law is that double recovery of losses should be avoided. In company law a related concept has emerged, known as the principle of reflective loss. This prevents a shareholder in a company from suing a wrongdoer for the reduction in the value of shares or distributions when the loss suffered is a ‘reflection’ of a loss sustained by the company. The intention is to ensure equality between shareholders as a whole and to underline that each shareholder’s investment follows the fortunes of the company.

One of the most powerful tools for insolvency practitioners when investigating the affairs of an insolvent company where wrongdoing is suspected is section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”). This confers power on English courts to order certain categories of parties to produce documents and an account of dealings relating to companies being wound up in the UK.

In what is likely to be one of this year’s landmark insolvency decisions, the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale has considered the interaction between insolvency set-off and adjudication, though the judgment is likely to have application to other dispute resolution processes including litigation and arbitration. The Supreme Court, unlike the High Court and Court of Appeal, permitted the adjudication to continue and, in doing so, dismissed the suggestion that insolvency set-off always results in the extinction of cross-claims to be replaced by a single claim for the balance.