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

Recently, the English High Court considered¹ how to interpret a material adverse change (“MAC”) clause which is a provision that routinely appears, in various forms, in loan agreements but on which there is limited case law. The court found in this case that there had been no MAC in the financial condition of a borrower.

Punj Lloyd Ltd (PLL), the ultimate parent of Simon Carves Ltd (SCL), provided 'letters of support' (what would in North America be called 'comfort letters') indicating to the board of SCL that PLL would 'provide the necessary financial and business support to ensure that [SCL] continues as a going concern'. This is precisely what SCL did not do: it went into administration, leaving invoices unpaid and unsecured creditors largely out of luck.

The Technology and Construction Court has decided that judgment should not be stayed following a contractor's unsuccessful defence of an adjudication claim brought by its M&E subcontractor.

The case reaffirmed some key principles in assessing whether a stay is justified in adjudication enforcement proceedings:

HMRC v SED Essex Limited

In HMRC v SED Essex Limited [2013] EWHC 1583(Ch) the High Court has confirmed that the Court will, in appropriate cases, uphold the appointment of provisional liquidators where the petition debt is based on allegations of fraud. The case sets out the court’s approach to disputed debts, VAT assessments, and provisional liquidation in order to preserve evidence as well as assets and the application of the guidance from the Court of Appeal in Rochdale Drinks.

What the case decided and why it matters

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