The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana¹leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.

Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.

The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:

The ruling confirmed that Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extensive international reach, and does not require a transaction at an undervalue to leave the debtor with insufficient assets.

Background

The High Court gave its ruling yesterday in the case of Discover (Northampton) Limited and others v Debenhams Retail Limited and others [2019] EWHC 2441 (Ch), rejecting four of the five grounds on which the Applicants disputed the validity of the company's Creditors Voluntary Arrangement ("CVA"), which was approved by creditors in May 2019.

A facilitation payment to encourage creditors to vote through the restructuring proposals of creditors’ debts has been held by the High Court not to be an illegal bribe. The court had regard to the fact that the offer of payment was made openly to all relevant creditors, none of whom were prevented from voting on the proposal. As such, where a creditor consented and received the facilitation payment, this was not contrary to the pari passu principle.

The facts

The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)¹. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc & others [2011] EWCA Civ 227

The Court of Appeal has allowed companies around the country to breathe a solvent sigh of relief, as it has held that the so-called “balance sheet” test of insolvency in s123(2) Insolvency Act 1996 is intended to apply where a company has reached a “point of no return” rather than being used as a “mechanistic, even artificial, reason for permitting a creditor to present a petition to wind up a company”.