Charles Russell Speechlys acts in landmark Greensill trial – pyrrhic victory for Credit Suisse as no relief granted against Softbank
Lord Justice Miles has today handed down his judgment in the case of Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SIF & Anr -v- Softbank Group Corp. & Ors [2025] EWHC 2631 (Ch).
Charles Russell Speechlys and Daniel Lewis of Wilberforce Chambers acted for the Seventh Defendant, Greensill Limited, which is a company in liquidation acting by its joint liquidators, Geoffrey Rowley and Paul Allen of FRP.
Credit Suisse pursued Softbank under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to a series of transactions between Greensill and Softbank which rendered $440m of notes held by Credit Suisse valueless.
Lord Justice Miles held that, although the constituent parts of the claim were proven – namely there had been a transaction at an undervalue and Greensill (acting by its director Lex Greensill) had the requisite purpose – he declined to grant any remedy against Softbank and dismissed the claim.
The decision is a notable example of where the Court has established that the test was satisfied but ultimately declined to award a remedy; in this case because doing so would not be an appropriate exercise of the Court’s restorative jurisdiction – primarily because Softbank had acted in good faith.
In reaching his decision, the Judge found that he was entitled to consider that the consideration for the transaction (shares in Californian construction company Katerra Inc) had subsequently become worthless – something he described as being akin to “an extreme case of market fluctuation”.
No substantive relief was sought by or against our client, Greensill Limited. Greensill Limited took the position that the transactions in question were at an undervalue, which the Judge agreed with, but Greensill Limited took no substantive position on culpability or the appropriate relief.
The Charles Russell Speechlys legal team was led by Partners James Hyne and Joseph Evans, with support from Senior Associate Jamie Tilling and Associates Georgina Bernard and Quentin de la Bastide.
James Hyne, Partner, comments:
This case presented complex challenges and novel legal issues resulting in a judgment confirming what (if any) relief the Court may order in respect of both section 423 and section 238 claims, even if proven. Although our clients were somewhat neutral in the litigation and sought no relief, we are pleased to note that the Judge agreed that the transactions were at an undervalue for the strict purposes of the legislation. It is not yet known whether the Claimants will seek an appeal, but nonetheless this judgment is likely to provoke discussion as to the intersection between the judicial finding of a transaction at an undervalue / putting assets beyond the reach of creditors, yet an unwillingness to grant relief for that transaction because the recipient was acting in good faith and the value of the asset had, in the learned Judge’s view, reduced to nil.
For a more detailed analysis of the judgment, please click here.
