JULY 2013
Legal Focus
81
Back to the dilemma for directors in the “zone of insolvency”, the balance sheet insolvency test contained in section 123(2) of the IA 1986 is a critical component of a wrongful trading claim as it can only be made if: (a) the company has gone into “insolvent liquidation,” which in turn is defined as assets being “insufficient for the payment of its (the company’s) debts and other liabilities” and (b) at some point prior to that time directors knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding an insolvent liquidation. A company is balance sheet insolvent if the “value of the company’s assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities” (s. 123(2) IA). Courts have agreed this test does not involve a simple aggregation of a company’s assets and liabilities at their face value. This would have the effect of dooming a vast number of otherwise solvent companies, especially those prone to cyclical ups and downs.
Rather, it involves a factual assessment of whether, on the balance of probabilities, and making proper allowance for a company’s prospective and contingent liabilities, a company cannot be reasonably expected to be able to meet those liabilities. The test needs to be viewed together with the ‘commercial’ cash flow insolvency test, being a company’s inability to pay its debts “as they fall due” as this test also contains an element of futurity (as per the 2007 Cheyne Finance PLC1
case and
confirmed in the Eurosail case to be discussed below). In practice, it is not easy to determine how the two tests interact, but once you move beyond the reasonably near future, applying the cash flow test will become speculative, and arguably only the balance sheet test will make sense.
How effective do you think it is in determining whether or not a company is insolvent? What impact has the significant decision by the UK Supreme Court in the case BnY Corporate trustee Services Limited and others v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC had on this assessment?
Although many loan agreements include events of default which reference all or various parts of the s.123(2) test, borrowers tend to resist the inclusion of a stand-alone balance sheet insolvency test primarily because of the inherent uncertainty of, and difficulty in, proving for future and contingent liabilities. Consider for example a scenario where multiple companies in a group provide guarantees for the entire debt. Unless you qualify the test, the contingent liability under the guarantee could in itself trigger a default.
The Court of Appeal in the BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others v Eurosail case2 , in its
commendable attempt at avoiding a too literal reading of the balance sheet test which may have caused the unintended consequence of causing otherwise solvent companies to breach the balance sheet test, stated that a company would, before it could be wound-up, have to have reached a “point of no return” such that the directors should have to “put up the shutters”3
. The
Supreme Court, although it agreed that the balance sheet test should not be approached literally, firmly rejected the ‘point of no return’ test and instead emphasised that it must be shown on the balance of probabilities, that a company cannot be reasonably expected to meet its (prospective and contingent) liabilities. That exercise, and eventual determination, the Court continued, must be capable of prediction and calculation with some degree of confidence. In the Eurosail case, the Court felt the determination of the company’s ability to pay debts due more than 30 years in the future would be more akin to speculation, and so refused to make the call.
The difficulty of quantifying contingent and prospective liabilities to the satisfaction of the court remains. However, administrators and liquidators are guided by accounting standards and the Insolvency Rules in this regard, as well as common-sense, which allows them to put a present value on future and/or contingent liabilities without being hindered by the burden of foresight; by no means an easy task though.. LM
Contact:
John Houghton Partner, London
tel: +44.20.7710.1847 Email:
john.houghton@lw.com
1 2 3
[2007] EWHC 2402_2 (Ch) [2011] EWCA Civ 227
This principle was coined by the eminent Prof Goode in his Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law (third edition)
www.lawyer-monthly.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132