Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREPartner Simon Fawell comments on the latest High Court judgment in the case of Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SAF v SoftBank Group Corp and Others, which explored the limits of a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act. Simon’s comments were published in CDR News, 4 November 2025, and can be found here.
Typically, a section 423 claim allows claimants to request financial relief if two main components are met. Signature Litigation partner Simon Fawell tells CDR: “Credit Suisse claimants lost out significantly. They alleged that under section 423 of the Insolvency Act that this was a transaction at an undervalue, [and it] had the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors.”
However, the claimants ended up receiving an unwelcome judgement. Fawell explains: “The headline from this particular judgment is that this is an instance where Lord Justice Miles found that all of the required boxes for a section 423 claim had been ticked, but nevertheless, he determined that no relief should be granted.”
Fawell points to the precedent Lord Justice Miles referenced set by the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA: “In exercising its discretion as to what relief should be ordered, the court can take into account the state of mind and culpability of the defendant. In Sequana, it was also acknowledged that there could be circumstances in which conditions for a section 423 transaction were made out but no relief would be granted.”
Additionally, Lord Justice Miles decided it would have been unfair to allow relief against SoftBank, as the Katerra Group had collapsed, rendering any benefits SoftBank had received in the company without value anyway.
This sets the dispute apart from a typical 423 case, which would just see an asset transferred back to the claimant, says Fawell. “Where that takes you is that if [Lord Justice Miles] was to grant any meaningful relief, then essentially that would need to come out of SoftBank’s pocket. [So] you can see how, because of that, he reached the conclusion that SoftBank was not culpable in his view, meaning that no relief should be granted.”
Fawell comments: “The ruling provides a very helpful roadmap in terms of the types of things that the court can take into account when formulating relief.”
He reiterates that the ruling remains a unique one: “The primary message for parties is that this case is exceptional and does not detract from the strength of section 423 as a tool.”
Fawell expects a higher number of cases will attempt to assert their good faith to get around an order to give relief. However, he does not expect the case to act as a “meaningful precedent that no relief will be ordered in a great number of cases”.
