Re Shoe Lace Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 111 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.

The liquidator of Shoe Lace Ltd sought a declaration that a debenture given to Sharp Investments Ltd, which owned 80 per cent of Shoe Lace and was part of a group controlled by the alleged shadow director Mr Mahtani who lived in Ratingen, was invalid under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 245 because it was created after payments to the company.

On the other hand, one would not say that the winner of a 100 metres race crossed the tape at the same time as the runner who came second, even though they were separated by less than a tenth of a second.

For example, it forms part of a scheme which includes the requirement that particulars of a floating charge must be delivered to the registrar of companies within 21 days of its creation.

The question, I think, is whether a businessman having knowledge of the kind of time limits imposed by the Insolvency and Companies Acts and using ordinary language would say that the payments had been made at the same time as the execution of the debenture.Ralph Gibson LJ, Nolan LJ and Sir Christopher Slade upheld Hoffmann J that a delay of any substantial length (more than a coffee break) would be fatal to the exception.