Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Kathy Stones looks at what happens if a parent company gives a comfort letter to its subsidiary and if it can be attacked by a third party creditor if it is later withdrawn? This issues was considered in the case of Simon Carves Ltd; Carillon Construction Ltd v Hussain  EWHC 685 (Ch),  All ER (D) 304 (Mar).
In this case, the claimant sought the court’s leave to bring proceedings to compel the ultimate parent company of a company in liquidation to honour a series of binding obligations which it had entered into by way of three separate letters of support. The Chancery Division, in refusing permission, decided the letters of support had not subjected the parent company to any enforceable obligation.
In summary, it confirmed that:
The High Court’s decision is unsurprising and reaffirms the position that determining whether a comfort letter is legally binding involves understanding what the letter means and establishing whether the parties to it intended it to give rise to obligations binding in law. Each case must turn on its particular facts. In this case, there was no real expectation the parent company would bail out the subsidiary and meet all of the liabilities then due for payment (or falling due shortly), which totalled around £271.5m. It was significant that the comfort letters were addressed to the board of directors of the UK subsidiary and not to the subsidiary itself because the court
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234