Judgment handed down in Greensill claim between Credit Suisse and 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) under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Daniel Lewis, instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys Partners James Hyne and Joseph Evans, with support from Senior Associate Jamie Tilling and Associates Georgina Bernard and Quentin de la Bastide, acted for the Seventh Defendant, Greensill Limited acting by its joint liquidators, Geoffrey Rowley and Paul Allen of FRP Advisory.

Greensill Limited was part of the Greensill Capital group of financial services companies founded by Lex Greensill, which collapsed into insolvency in 2021.

The First Claimant – a sub-fund of Credit Suisse – had invested in loan notes with a face value of $440 million (referred to in the judgment as the “Fairymead Notes”). By what are referred to as the “Impugned Transactions” Greensill was left without assets and Credit Suisse was deprived of security.

The Claimants succeeded in establishing that: (i) the relevant transactions were the two Impugned Transactions and not a wider network of transactions relied upon by Softbank; (ii) the Impugned Transactions were at an undervalue; and (iii) that Greensill Limited (by Lex Greensill) had the relevant purpose under section 423.  That Credit Suisse was a victim of the Impugned Transactions was not in issue.  The Court also rejected an argument that the remedy should take into account the “fault” of the Claimants (there being no defence of contributory negligence nor causation requirement under sections 423 or 425).

Nonetheless, Lord Justice Miles declined to order relief against Softbank, which was recognised in the Supreme Court’s decision in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA to be an “exceptional” result.  That result was said to be justified because this was not the typical straightforward case of transfer of an asset by the debtor to a third party and because the value of the assets transferred fell to nil through no fault or action of Softbank.

This was, therefore, one of those very rare cases where all the constituent elements of section 423 were made out, but the Court nonetheless refused to order any relief and dismissed the claim.

Read the full judgment