Powered by Lexis+®
CASE STUDY

“I'm able to do more in the day, which means I'm providing more value to my clients - and it's helped my margins in terms of how much I can bill. LexisNexis is helping me make money.”

ParrisWhittaker

Access all documents on Cash flow insolvency

Cash flow insolvency meaning

What does Cash flow insolvency mean?
Cash flow insolvency is where a debtor cannot pay debts as they fall due from available cash resources. In corporate practice in England & Wales and Scotland this is the statutory cash-flow test in Insolvency Act 1986, s 123(1)(e); a substantially identical test applies in Northern Ireland and, for Irish companies, under Companies Act 2014 (s 570). The inquiry is commercial and forward-looking: it considers debts presently due and those falling due in the reasonably near future. Temporary illiquidity or short-term refinancing gaps will not, without more, prove insolvency. Key authorities include Re Cheyne Finance Ltd [2007] EWHC 2402 (Ch) and BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail [2013] UKSC 28. For individuals, “cash flow insolvency” is descriptive. Formal bankruptcy or sequestration grounds are set by statute (including the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016) and are typically evidenced by an unpaid statutory demand, judgment or expired charge. Practically, the cash-flow test underpins creditor winding-up petitions, administration appointments and decisions on trading while insolvent; sustained cash-flow insolvency may expose directors to wrongful trading risk and heighten duties to creditors. Usage is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, though procedures differ.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Cash flow insolvency

NEWS
UK Construction Insolvency: Causes, Red Flags, Employer/Contractor Risk Management, JCT/NEC/FIDIC Termination, Adjudication after Bresco, Directors’ Liability, and Lessons from Carillion and ISG

Introduction The wave of insolvencies across the construction sector is profoundly troubling, with firms still acutely exposed. Although contractor failure is not new in a market defined by thin profit margins, fixed‑price contracts and cash‑hungry, cash‑intensive delivery, ISG’s recent collapse starkly illustrates persistent challenges: heavy dependence on cash flow and the difficulty of steering multiple stakeholders on major, complex projects. Such pressures pervade large‑scale schemes throughout the industry. With the new Labour government unveiling ambitious infrastructure and housing programmes, the insolvency question is even more pressing, and lessons must be learnt to avert future industry failures. In this article, we outline the principal causes and the usual red flags that signal distress, before exploring particular insolvency concerns from both employer and contractor viewpoints. Building on that analysis, we then set out practical measures for managing risk effectively, followed by consideration of potential post‑insolvency actions against directors, and a review of the key case studies of ISG and Carillion. Throughout, the emphasis is on pragmatic guidance that enables stakeholders to...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Re Poundland Ltd: cross-class cram down restructuring plan sanctioned despite nine dissenting landlord classes; fair allocation of benefits and justified differential treatment upheld (England and Wales)

Re Poundland Ltd [2025] EWHC 2755 (Ch) What was the background? Poundland Ltd ran around 800 discount stores across the UK, employing 13,100 people, but fell into financial distress after unsuccessful moves into chilled and frozen categories and e‑commerce, while higher National Insurance and the living wage pushed up operating costs. EBITDA dropped steeply from £87m in FY22 to £25m in FY24, with FY25 projected at a negative £117m. The business was owned by Pepco NV via PEU (Tre) Ltd, and between 2021–2022 Pepco advanced £237m in unsecured loans to meet post‑coronavirus (COVID‑19) needs and fund the diversification programme. A limited M&A process in spring 2024 produced only two interested parties, neither proceeding due to sharply worsening profitability. Pepco then began a strategic review, including a CBRE leasehold estate review that found extensive over‑renting across the portfolio. Efforts to reach consensual lease restructurings with landlords saw only modest progress, constrained by the portfolio’s scale and cash flow‑driven time limits. In March 2025 Pepco supplied further liquidity through a £30m...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Injunction to restrain winding-up petition refused: factual disputes and cash-flow solvency insufficient where undisputed debt exceeds £750; precise quantum unnecessary (England and Wales)

Portland Stone Firms Ltd v Albert Goodman LLP [2025] EWHC 702 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision clarifies the court’s approach to disputed debts at both petition and injunction stages. It stresses substance over form and centres on whether there is an indisputable sum above the statutory threshold. Disputed facts do not, without more, require the petition’s dismissal; the court will interrogate the evidence in depth to see if the dispute is tenable. At the interlocutory injunction stage, identifying an undisputed liability—or one not realistically disputable on substantial grounds—is sufficient for the petition to proceed. Proof of cash flow solvency alone will not justify restraining the presentation or advertisement of the petition in such a scenario, even where the chances of convincing the court at the petition hearing that the company is insolvent are slim. The court need not pinpoint the exact amount due, provided it is evident that more than £750 is owed and any arguable dispute...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Cash flow insolvency

PRACTICE NOTES
Corporate financial distress: warning signs, management accounts analysis, 13-week cash flow, stakeholder strategies and ipso facto restrictions for commercial lawyers in England, Wales and Scotland

This Practice Note offers guidance for the commercial practitioner on identifying when a company is encountering significant financial distress. It also condenses the key matters to prioritise to steady the business whilst evaluating the options available to the company, and outlines considerations for a business trading with a company in financial difficulty... Establishing serious financial difficulty Signals can usually be detected in a company’s financial statements and management accounts, as well as in communications with major suppliers and debt providers (eg banks, supplier statutory demands, etc). If the board fails to deal with these indicators, they will, in most cases, result in a value‑destroying formal insolvency of the company... Warning signs heightened competition causing loss of key customers and tighter margins an outmoded business model due to technological advances or shifts in customer demand/revenue channels weak cash generation/poor working capital management excessive debt and...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
UK tax treatment and reorganisation relief for share-for-share exchanges and loan notes (QCBs and non-QCBs): conditions, anti-avoidance, BADR, SSE and degrouping

In certain corporate takeovers, the purchaser may arrange the deal so that the price is satisfied by issuing new shares and/or loan notes in the acquiring company. Rather than, or in addition to, receiving cash, the vendor shareholders swap their existing shares (or loan notes) for fresh shares and/or loan notes created by the corporate buyer. This Practice Note explains the tax consequences for the selling shareholders and the acquirer in such arrangements. It covers both parties’ positions under the relevant tax rules. This method of acquisition plainly offers a cash flow benefit to the buyer and, provided specific conditions are met, the securities exchange is also treated as a reorganisation for tax purposes. Consequently, no capital gains tax (or corporation tax on chargeable gains) is due from the selling shareholders at the point they dispose of their shares. Where the consideration comprises a mixture of cash and shares and/or loan notes issued by the buyer, no tax is payable to the extent that the consideration consists of those shares...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Set-off under English law: availability, requirements and limits—independent, transaction, contractual, insolvency and banker's set-off; mutuality, trusts, assignments, and unmatured, unliquidated and contingent claims

Set-off remains a nuanced but significant doctrine across litigation and a wide range of transactions. Both independent set-off and transaction set-off may serve as defences in legal proceedings. For further detail, see Practice Notes: Independent set-off and transaction set-off and Pleading set-off. In commercial contexts, transaction set-off is a key entitlement for a party asserting breach of contract to resist a demand for payment under that contract. Parties to a contract can also make express provision for set-off in their written terms, either widening or curbing the extent of mutual rights to set off. For more information, see Practice Note: Contractual set-off. Within finance deals, contractual set-off, insolvency set-off and banker's set-off are often central. For more information, see Practice Note: Set-off in finance transactions. The construction industry also relies on set-off to help regulate cash flow. For more information, see Practice Note: Set-off in construction. Set-off likewise arises frequently in landlord and tenant relationships, particularly regarding the setting off of rent. For more information, see Practice Note: Set-off and...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related UK Parliament Acts about Cash flow insolvency

UK PARLIAMENT ACTS
123 Definition of inability to pay debts

(1)     A company is deemed unable to pay its debts—(a)     if a creditor (by assignment or otherwise) to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding £750 then due has served on the company, by leaving it at the company's registered office, a written demand (in the prescribed form) requiring the company to pay the sum so due and the company has for 3 weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum or to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor, or(b)     if, in England and