Introduction

The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.

Background

簡介

英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決，其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任，是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發，還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。

背景

本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司（「該公司」）的董事。於2009年5月，他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東（「第一答辯人」）派發1.35億歐元的股息（「該股息」），以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時，其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而，該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債，導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。

Directors who oppose the winding-up of an insolvent company in the hope that a restructuring proposal would come to fruition should tread carefully and consider seriously whether to put the company into liquidation.

Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has confirmed that the court should respect the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in bankruptcy proceedings, just as it does in ordinary civil actions. To do otherwise, it said, it would be illogical.

As the tile suggests the state of recognition and assistance jurisprudence & practice in Hong Kong is less than clear. This follows the recent (mostly) conflicting 1st instance decisions of Up Energy and Global Brands. Here are my views about (i) what I believe is settled; (ii) the points of judicial difference; and (iii) what remains unclear.

Settled

This is an important update in the Australian corporate and insolvency law context because, in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court (being the UK’s highest court) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by directors to creditors in certain circumstances (creditor duty). Under the common law and equity (together, general law), there is a gateway to applicability of the creditor duty in Australia.

引言

英国终审法院最近就 BTI 2014 LLC 诉 Sequana SA 及其他 [2022 UKSC 25] 一案（“Sequana 案”）颁布一份万众期待的判决。Sequana 案的法理将于开曼群岛以至其他普通法司法管辖权区成为极具说服力的法律根据。

Sequana 案是一项有用的判决，原因如下：

• 该案不但确认董事对股东负有受信责任而须真诚以公司最佳利益行事的传统观点，同时指出董事于公司无力偿债或濒临无力偿债或可能进行无力偿债清盘或管理时，须考虑债权人利益或以其行事（“债权人利益责任”）。
• Sequana 为英国终审法院审理的首宗案件裁定董事于哪些情况下必须考虑公司债权人利益，不论债权人利益责任可否于公司无力偿债前触发，以及股东可否认可对债权人利益责任的潜在违反。

背景

In this Article, José-Antonio Maurellet SC (a member of DVC and an Associate Member of 3 Verulam Buildings) and Michael Lok discuss the landmark decision just handed down by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others 

Where a company's liquidation is necessary, deciding who or where is best placed to administer an orderly wind down for the benefit of creditors can be difficult: the shortfall of assets in an insolvency will highlight jurisdictional differences in approach as to questions of priority, frequently territorial rather than universalist.