• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

  • About Us
  • Coverage-in-Depth
    • Crypto-Bankruptcy
    • Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy
    • Texas Two-Step and the Future of Mass Tort Bankruptcy
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Establishing Corporate Insolvency: The Balance Sheet Insolvency Test

By Dr. Kubi Udofia

Cash flow and balance sheet insolvency tests are the two predominant means of determining insolvency. A company is cash flow or commercially insolvent if it is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. Balance sheet or technical insolvency occurs where the value of a company’s assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account both contingent and prospective liabilities. The term liabilities is broader than debts as it encompasses liquidated and unliquidated liabilities arising from contracts, tort, restitution etc. This article compares the two insolvency tests and introduces the English approach to the balance sheet insolvency test.

Commercial insolvency is the more prominent of the tests. It is also comparatively easier to establish. In restructuring, a creditor’s immediate concern is often the debtor’s ability to make payments as they mature as opposed to whether its assets are sufficient to meet its present and future liabilities. Despite its seeming obscurity, balance sheet insolvency test is commonly employed in commercial transactions as an event of default. This provides counterparties with early warning signs in long-term contracts where there are no avenues of making demands capable of triggering commercial insolvency.

In BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc [2013] UKSC 28, the English Supreme Court stated that balance sheet insolvency test required a court to be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, a company has insufficient assets to meet its liabilities, taking into account prospective and contingent liabilities. This is easier said than done. It has been rightly observed that valuation of assets and liabilities is not an exact science but a matter of judgment as to the amount a willing buyer would pay in the market when dealing with a willing seller. The valuation process may understandably be laborious, detailed and complex. Courts may not be capable of effectively dealing with such intricacies.

The full article is available here.

Written by:
Editor
Published on:
July 2, 2019

Categories: Bankruptcy Roundtable Updates, International and Comparative, ValuationTags: Balance Sheet Insolvency Test, Cash Flow Insolvency Test, Dr. Kubi Udofia, English courts

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

Creditor Rights and Legal Transaction Costs

December 5, 2023

[Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Series] Respondent Briefs (Respondent and pro-release parties)

November 28, 2023

[Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Series] Petitioner Briefs (US Trustee and other anti-release parties)

November 21, 2023

View by Subject Matter

363 sales Anthony Casey Bankruptcy Bankruptcy administration Bankruptcy Courts Bankruptcy Reform Chapter 11 Chapter 15 Claims Trading Cleary Gottlieb Comparative Law COVID-19 cramdown David Skeel Derivatives DIP Financing Empirical FIBA Financial Crisis fraudulent transfer Jared A. Ellias Jevic Johnson & Johnson Jones Day Kenneth Ayotte Lehman LTL Management Mark G. Douglas Mark Roe Michael L. Cook plan confirmation Priority restructuring Safe Harbors Schulte Roth & Zabel Sovereign Debt SPOE Stephen Lubben Supreme Court syndicated Texas Two-Step Trust Indenture Act Valuation Weil Gotshal Workouts

Footer

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

1563 Massachusetts Ave,
Cambridge, MA 02138
Accessibility | Digital Accessibility | Harvard Law School

Copyright © 2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Copyright © 2023 · Navigation Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in