Q&A with Sarah Paterson, Senior Consultant in Restructuring & Insolvency at Slaughter and May

Q&A with Sarah Paterson, Senior Consultant in Restructuring & Insolvency at Slaughter and May

Sarah is a Senior Consultant in the Restructuring & Insolvency team at Slaughter and May. She is also one of the authors for the Encyclopaedia of Banking Law.

[thumbnail src="http://lexisnexis.blogs.local.com/loanranger/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/01/S.Paterson_photo2.jpg"]

Who in the profession do you admire and why?

The hugely experienced guardians of modern insolvency law in the UK who were so generous to me when I took my first, faltering steps in the profession – notably, Mark Hyde from Clifford Chance, Nick Segal, now at Freshfields and Jonathan Rushworth and George Seligman from Slaughters.

What is the biggest change you have witnessed in restructuring and insolvency law during your career so far?

Without a doubt, the change from restructurings agreed in the market in the shadow of insolvency law, but without a real role for the law unless a debt restructuring could not be agreed, to the need for law to play a real role in solving the deadlock problem between creditors so that a debt restructuring can be implemented – in short the arrival of what we might call “restructuring law” as well as “insolvency law” in England.

What trends are you currently seeing in how restructurings and/or insolvencies are being conducted?

The arrival of the distressed debt traders in England has had a profound effect on the way in which restructurings and insolvencies are conducted.  Gone are what the distressed debt traders might call the “clubby” days of the English restructuring market in which lenders negotiated not just by reference to their own position but also with an eye on the dynamics of the creditors as a whole.  Instead, restructurings are negotiated in a “hyper rational” way, with a far more individualistic approach.  Critics argue that this new negotiating paradigm produces its own inefficiencies and fans argue that it is altogether more professional but whatever your take on it, it means that the outcomes at law assume a far greater significance than perhaps they once did.

Have you seen any practical consequences of the decision in Eurosail?

In the vast majority of cases Eurosail has no significance because the creditors are able to trigger a financial covenant breach leading to cash flow, rather than balance sheet, insolvency.  But it might become very significant indeed if we see a continued growth in bond financing with incurrence covenants and covenant lite loans.

You author the section in the Encyclopaedia of Banking Law which deals with The Banking Act 2009 (the Act). What key risks does the Act aim to mitigate?

The financial crisis has shown us all how fragile confidence is and how devastating the wholesale destruction of confidence in financial markets can be.  The Act seeks to put in place procedures which are adapted to the unique challenges of financial institution distress so that market confidence is not destroyed by early failures in the system.

Do you consider that in addition to its obvious advantages, the Act could have any negative impact on the market?

There is an inherent tension at the heart of dealing with the risks of financial institutions and this tension pervades not just the Act but other policy initiatives.  On the one hand, we need to make sure that robust systems are in place to deal with financial institution failure to preserve the integrity of the financial system.  But, at the same time, financial institutions need to raise capital and we need to ensure that we do not put in place laws which apply in distress which affect the willingness of investors to provide capital to healthy financial institutions.  My view is that the Act does balance these competing objectives but vigilance is needed in post-crisis policy responses.

You also author the section of the Encyclopaedia of Banking Law which deals with cross-border insolvencies; what developments are you seeing in this area? Do you see the boom of schemes in foreign companies continuing?

As financial markets converge, so that the distinction between dispersed credit markets in the US and concentrated bank-led credit markets in Europe disappears, all European countries are slowly recognising the need for the law to deal not just with resolving the situation when creditors have decided that they are no longer willing to support a company but also in assisting creditors to agree a new bargain when the debt needs to be restructured.  We might, then, expect that we will see fewer efforts to use the insolvency laws of other jurisdictions as domestic laws are made more fit for purpose.  But I wonder whether there will not be a continuing role for English schemes because of the highly commercial and agile approach which our courts have taken to debt restructuring.  We know two things for sure.  First, once a business is in distress, the sooner we can get on and fix the problem the better.  Secondly, the period in which a company is in restructuring talks is highly inefficient: cash is drained which could be used to provide stakeholders with a return and management are focused on the restructuring talks rather than running the business.  Thus markets will focus not just on the law on the books but also on the law in action in determining how to implement a restructuring.

For further information on the Encyclopaedia of Banking Law, click here.

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:
About the author:

Neeta started her legal career at Allen & Overy in 2008 in the midst of the global financial crisis and the collapse of Lehmans where she gained most of her paralegal experience.

Neeta also did a short stint in litigation at the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office in 2006. Neeta graduated with a 2:1 honours degree from University of London, Queen Mary College and went on to obtain a distinction from the College of Law in the Legal Practice. She has been working at Lexis Nexis since April 2013.