Sarah Paterson

Administrative support: Sarah Lee
Room: New Academic Building 6.06
Tel. 020-7106-1244

Sarah Paterson is an assistant professor of corporate insolvency. Before joining LSE she was a partner in Slaughter and May in London, with whom she retains a consultancy.



Research Interests
  • Corporate recovery and insolvency

  • Trusts

External Activities
  • Consultant to Slaughter and May

  • Member of the Insolvency Lawyers’ Association

  • Member of the Technical Committee of the Insolvency Lawyers’ Association

  • Member of the Association of Business Recovery Professionals


Butterworths Encyclopaedia of Banking Law (Butterworths Law, 1996-); contributing editor, Division F2

Debt restructuring (Oxford University Press, 2011) (with Rodrigo Olivares-Caminal, John Douglas, Randall Guynn, Alan Kornberg, Dalvinder Singh, and Hilary Stonefrost)

Selected articles
and chapters in books

'Rethinking the Role of the Law of Corporate Distress in the Twenty-First Century' Law Society and Economy Working Paper Series, WPS 27-2014 December 2014

Thomas Jackson famously described the role of all bankruptcy law as reducing the incentive for individual enforcement against the assets of a distressed company. Although scholars have debated other aspects of Jackson's thesis, most have continued to identify with this as the central tenet of bankruptcy law. This paper proposes a new taxonomy: the law of corporate distress comprised of insolvency law and restructuring law. It argues that Thomas Jackson's description remains apt for part of that taxonomy but draws a distinction between the constituent parts. It reframes the unifying aim of the law of corporate distress as the facilitation of the reallocation of resource in the economy to best use and draws a distinction between insolvency law's role in reducing the incentive for individual enforcement and restructuring law's role in providing a deadlock resolution procedure. Adopting a comparative Anglo-American approach it examines the implications of this distinction for insolvency law and restructuring law in the twenty-first century.

'Bargaining in Financial Restructuring: Market Norms, Legal Rights and Regulatory Standards' Journal of Corporate Law Studies 14 (2) (2014) pp.333-366

In the 1990s large financial restructurings were typically negotiated by reference to the market conventions of the day, reflected in a set of principles known as the London Approach. Commentary on the London Approach at the start of the last decade sounded a note of caution for its survival in rapidly changing credit markets. This article is about what happened as parties moved away from negotiating by reference to market norms towards negotiating by reference to their strict legal rights. It considers the difficulties which have arisen and whether these are best tackled by law and the courts or by the market and regulation.

‘Lodging a Proof of Debt and Submission to Jurisdiction’ (2013) Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 6.3

‘COMI: The Elephant in the Room’ (2012) Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 5.4

‘Charter Communications: A Charter for Others?’ (2010) Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 3.4

‘LyondellBasell: The Longer Arm of Chapter 11’ (2009) Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 2.4