How Shoosmiths helped navigate a complex post-Brexit insolvency involving multiple jurisdictions, competing proceedings and one of the world's best-known luxury brands.
Published: 6 November 2026
Authors: Lee Sennett & Lisa Bricknell
Imagine being appointed over the owner of a globally recognised luxury brand, only to discover that insolvency practitioners in another country have also been appointed over the same company.
Who has authority? Which court takes precedence? How do you sell assets when different insolvency regimes have different objectives? And, in a post-Brexit world, what do you do when the rules that once governed those questions no longer apply?
Those were just some of the challenges facing the team advising the liquidators of La Perla Global Management UK Limited, part of the internationally renowned La Perla luxury lingerie group. Corporate restructuring & advisory partner, Lee Sennett, who led the matter, spoke about one of the most unusual cross-border insolvencies the team has encountered.
"What started as a relatively straightforward liquidation became anything but"
At first glance, the position appeared relatively simple. The UK company held the group's intellectual property, and the expectation was that the liquidators would realise that asset for creditors.
But La Perla's structure was far from straightforward.
"The intellectual property sat in the UK, but manufacturing was carried out in Italy, most employees were based there, and the brand itself was inextricably linked to Italy," says Lee.
The complexity increased when Italian proceedings were opened over the same company, while a key manufacturing business entered an Italian extraordinary administration process. Suddenly, multiple officeholders across different jurisdictions were involved in different parts of the same group.
"What we thought would be a relatively straightforward asset realisation became significantly more complicated," Lee recalls.
The post-Brexit challenge
Before Brexit, practitioners would have looked to the European Insolvency Regulation framework to help resolve many of these issues.
This time, there was no playbook.
"The old framework wasn't there anymore," says Lee. "You couldn't simply point to a set of rules that told everybody how these competing proceedings should interact."
A lengthy jurisdictional battle was possible, but it wasn't attractive.
"There was a real risk that we'd spend years arguing about jurisdiction while value continued to disappear. The business needed a practical solution, not a perfect legal answer."
That thinking shaped the team's approach from the outset.
Building cooperation instead of conflict
Rather than focusing on who should prevail, the team worked with officeholders in Italy to develop a bespoke cross-border protocol. The aim was simple: create a framework that allowed everyone to fulfil their duties while preserving value.
The protocol dealt with how the parties would communicate, realise assets, allocate costs and ultimately distribute proceeds. It drew on concepts familiar to insolvency practitioners from the old European regime but adapted them for a post-Brexit world.
"Everybody had different obligations and different stakeholders," says Lee. "The challenge wasn't deciding who was right. It was finding a structure that allowed everybody to move forward."
More than an intellectual property sale
One of the key lessons from the matter was that value sat in far more than the intellectual property alone.
The brand, manufacturing capability, workforce and heritage were all closely connected. At the same time, the various insolvency processes were driven by different statutory objectives, including preserving employment and protecting an iconic Italian brand.
"The value wasn't simply in an isolated asset," says Lee. "The wider business and brand story mattered."
That meant a conventional disposal process was unlikely to produce the best outcome.
Thinking creatively
The solution required a degree of innovation.
Different jurisdictions imposed different restrictions on how assets could be realised, making a straightforward sale problematic. To overcome those obstacles, the intellectual property was transferred into a dedicated vehicle and made available through a long-term licence with future acquisition rights.
"We had to think differently," says Lee. "The challenge wasn't just identifying the legal position. It was finding something that would actually work in practice."
The structure enabled the transaction to progress while balancing the commercial and legal concerns of stakeholders across multiple jurisdictions.
The people side of cross-border restructurings
One of Lee's strongest reflections is that some of the biggest challenges weren't legal at all.
Cross-border matters inevitably involve different cultures, working practices and expectations.
"You learn very quickly that not every jurisdiction approaches these issues in the same way," he says. "Part of the challenge is understanding those differences and finding a way to work through them constructively."
For Lee, that ability to balance technical expertise with commercial pragmatism was ultimately what made the project successful.
Looking ahead
While La Perla involved a famous luxury brand, the lessons are increasingly relevant across all sectors. Businesses are more international than ever assets are held across multiple jurisdictions and insolvencies rarely fit neatly within national boundaries.
"Cases like this remind you that there isn't always an answer sitting in a textbook," says Lee. "Sometimes the real value comes from bringing people together and creating a solution that otherwise wouldn't exist."
For Shoosmiths, La Perla showcased the team's ability to navigate novel cross-border challenges, coordinate stakeholders across competing insolvency processes and develop practical solutions in situations where there is no obvious roadmap.