UK: Eurosail Supreme Court Judgment: Delineating The Boundaries Of Insolvency "To Be Solvent Or Not To Be Solvent, That Is The Question"

Odd as it may seem, you have to plough through 122 sections of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act") before you finally reach the section that sets out the criteria for establishing insolvency. Section 123 of the Act lists a series of circumstances under which a company may be deemed insolvent. Some of these circumstances are factual—for example, owing a debt of more than £750 for more than 21 days after a demand for payment—but two rely on a legal test of company insolvency. These two tests are colloquially known as the "cash-flow test" and the "balance-sheet test." Direct or indirect reference to these tests is prevalent throughout English-law finance documents, including those based on Loan Market Association standard forms, as a way of determining whether an event of default has occurred and/or termination clauses have been triggered.

The UK Supreme Court has now unanimously confirmed the test for balance-sheet insolvency under section 123 of the Act in its decision in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail and others [2013] UKSC 28. In particular, the court declined to follow the intermediate court of appeal's suggestion that a debtor can be insolvent only after it has reached the "point of no return." The three court rulings in this matter concluding with the recent Supreme Court judgment are the first reported cases to interpret the balance-sheet test of insolvency—namely, are the liabilities of a company greater than its assets?

Cash Flow v Balance Sheet

The circumstances under which a company is to be "deemed unable to pay its debts" (i.e., insolvent) under section 123 of the Act include:

  • if "the company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due"; or
  • if "the value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities."

Even a casual observer can see that many companies are balance-sheet insolvent, while still being able to comfortably meet current debts. Following a line of cases, the accepted position was that the cash-flow test took precedence over the balance-sheet test. However, courts would sometimes accept that a company, despite meeting day-to-day debts, was balance-sheet insolvent, since its long-term liabilities (very often pension deficits) were such that there was no chance that they would be repaid, however long one waited.

In the Beginning . . .

The first hearing in the long-running Eurosail case was in 2010, although the event under scrutiny occurred before that. Eurosail (as issuer) purchased a portfolio of high-risk mortgages for securitisation and issued notes. (The ones subject to the hearing were due to mature in 2045.) Although the underlying mortgage payers paid only in pounds sterling, Eurosail issued notes in various currencies, entering into swap arrangements with two Lehman Brothers entities to reduce its exposure to currency-rate fluctuations. These swap arrangements ceased in 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Without the protection of the hedging arrangements, Eurosail's net-asset position weakened substantially, but it was still able to pay its debts as they arose.

The security trustee was entitled to declare an event of default under the notes and enforce the security if, among other conditions, Eurosail could be deemed unable to pay its debts under the balance-sheet test of section 123(2) of the Act. A notification of an event of default would also alter the priorities between noteholders such that subordinated "A3" noteholders would then rank equally with, rather than behind, "A2" noteholders. Naturally, this would also reduce the distribution for A2 noteholders. Additionally, a post-enforcement call option ("PECO") had been granted under the securitisation. The PECO provided that in the event the security for the notes was enforced and found to be insufficient to pay all amounts due in respect of them, an affiliate of Eurosail had a call option for the notes for nominal consideration. PECO provisions are a common feature of securitisations with a UK-incorporated issuer as a means of satisfying rating-agency requirements for insolvency remoteness. The expectation is that an affiliate would release the issuer from further liabilities rather than allow the issuer to enter into an insolvent liquidation.

The court was asked to decide whether Eurosail was unable to pay its debts under the section 123(2) balance-sheet test and whether the PECO would have any effect on that decision.

First-Instance Decision: Assets v Liabilities

The first-instance court decided that Eurosail was able to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123(2); the key point was the interpretation of "taking into account contingent and prospective liabilities." It decided that the assets to be valued were the present assets of the company. According to the court, the nature of Eurosail's business meant that it was not necessary to consider whether valuation was on a going-concern or breakup basis, but the court did explicitly include the as-yet unallowed claims against the Lehman Brothers estate as an asset of Eurosail.

In contrast, the court narrowed which liabilities needed to be counted and how much weight to give them. The court rejected the idea of comparing liabilities on their face value to assets on their face value, deeming it "commercially illogical" not to give weight to the maturity date of the obligations. The judge also noted that section 123(2) refers to "taking into account" liabilities, not "includ[ing]" liabilities. Thus, the court reasoned, a straight aggregation of present and prospective liabilities was not what Parliament intended when it enacted the provision.

The court also rejected the company's financial statements as a means of establishing insolvency, concluding that such records considered elements which were deemed to go "beyond what [section] 123(2) requires," while also excluding assets which the court held ought to be counted.

The court also took into account the fact that: (i) the notes in question were not due to mature until 2045; (ii) any valuation of liabilities relating to currency fluctuations was "entirely speculative"; and (iii) the notes were actually fully funded, as any losses in the underlying asset pool would also reduce the liabilities due to the noteholders through the operation of the "principal deficiency ledger" governing the notes (a mechanism for distributing the risk of principal losses among noteholders in reverse order of seniority).

Since the court concluded that Eurosail was solvent, there was no need to consider the PECO, although the judge made side comments that in his opinion the PECO had no effect on the liabilities because, until the option holder should decide to release the issuer from liability, the issuer's liabilities would remain.

Court of Appeal: "The Point of No Return"

The court of appeal agreed with the lower court that Eurosail was solvent and able to meet its debts. In its reasoning, the court agreed with the lower court that examining only a balance sheet or a company's financial statements was not the test. Many solvent and successful companies, the court noted, had greater liabilities than assets, especially early in their history, yet it would be "mechanistic, even artificial" to deem such a company insolvent. However, the court of appeal went on to state that a company would be found balance-sheet insolvent only if the company "had reached the point of no return." It stated that future or contingent creditors face an inherent risk that the company's assets might be used to pay current creditors or for other purposes, but they are not prejudiced by that risk until those payments, in the judge's colourful phrase, "may be vernacularly characterised as a fraud on the future or contingent creditors." According to the court, only at that point may a company be deemed to have reached the point of no return. Even so, the court acknowledged that that test would be "imprecise, judgement-based and fact-specific."

A supporting judgment drew back from endorsing the "point of no return" idea, suggesting that it illuminated rather than paraphrased the legislation. Instead, the concurring judge focused on the idea that a court would make proper allowance for contingent and prospective liabilities but that the more distant the liabilities, the harder it would be to establish that such liabilities would not be satisfied.

The Supreme Court: The Imponderable Factors

The Supreme Court backed the view that insolvency may occur before the point of no return and that this phrase should not "pass into common usage." According to the court, the true test should be whether on a balance of probabilities the debtor has insufficient assets to be able to meet all of its liabilities, applying a discount for contingencies and future liabilities. This test would come into play once any attempt to apply a cash-flow test became too speculative as the time frame lengthened beyond the reasonably near future. That said, the court acknowledged that it was "still very far from an exact test" and that the burden of proof would be on the party trying to prove balance-sheet insolvency.

Given that it is an inexact test, the Supreme Court concluded that the available evidence in the circumstances was the critical factor. Eurosail's business, the court explained, was quite unlike a normal trading business. In fact, the only important management decision to be made in this context would have been to attempt to find alternative hedging cover in light of Lehman Brothers' demise. Although it might then be quite easy to list Eurosail's assets against its liabilities, the court held that there were three "imponderable factors" which prevented it from finding Eurosail insolvent. Those factors were: (i) fluctuation of the US dollar against the pound sterling for hedging arrangements; (ii) movement in the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) affecting the interest rates of the loans; and (iii) changes in the UK real estate market, which affected the value of the underlying pool of assets.

Because maturities on some obligations could be deferred for more than 30 years and Eurosail was paying its debts as they fell due, the Supreme Court expressed the greatest reluctance to make a finding of insolvency. Generally, the Court wrote, any court should proceed with "the greatest caution in deciding that a company is in a state of balance-sheet insolvency under [section] 123(2)."

Like the first-instance court, the Supreme Court concluded that it was not necessary to make a finding on the status of the PECO, but given the frequency with which PECOs are used, the court did consider it useful to make some passing comments. It held that PECOs were irrelevant in the exercise of balancing assets and liabilities to establish balance-sheet insolvency. According to the court, it is not possible to distinguish the intended commercial effect of these provisions from their legal effect, so PECOs have no role to play when assessing a company's liabilities.

Where to Next?

In some ways, the Supreme Court judgment in Eurosail does not tell us anything new. Crucially, it pushed back on the court of appeal's "point of no return" concept, keeping to a fairly common-sense view of proving insolvency via a balancing of potential assets and liabilities based on evidence and allowing for judicial discretion. The court also allowed market practice to prevail regarding securitisations and PECOs, while noting that it had not been persuaded purely on that basis.

Nonetheless, the series of Eurosail rulings has brought some judicial interpretation to a previously unconsidered section of legislation. The judgment has also helped clarify some points that were previously open or unclear. This is especially important as the statutory language has been utilised, sometimes with modifications, in a range of contracts and market-standard documents. Thus, securitisations and PECOs can continue to operate as they did before Eurosail.

Points of clarification provided by the Eurosail rulings include the following:

  • The cash-flow test should look only to what is the reasonably near future in the relevant circumstances. How far ahead the test should look will vary depending on the facts, but some forward-looking analysis should be included.
  • Although a court should be wary of finding a company's balance sheet insolvent, it need not establish that the company has reached the point of no return to conclude that it is balance-sheet insolvent. The party trying to claim insolvency bears the burden of proof.
  • A company's financial statements are only a starting point for an analysis of balance-sheet insolvency. Full consideration of all evidence of assets and liabilities should be taken into account.
  • There can be different weighting and discounting of liabilities. For example, the longer the maturity of the obligation, the lower the value that may be attributed to it (since it is more likely that the company will be able to satisfy it, resulting in a relative decline in the value of the liability). In the same way, an assessment should be made as to the likelihood that a contingent liability will become an actual one; the more likely the event, the greater the value that should be attributed to the claim.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Mark G. Douglas
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.