Introduction

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 ("Sequana Case") which concerns the question of the trigger point when directors must have regard to the interests of creditors ("Creditor Duty"). This case raised questions of considerable importance for Malaysian company law.

Over a decade after Lehman’s insolvency, the English High Court handed down a key judgement in Grant v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd [1] on 11 October 2022. The judgement provides commentary on when certain Events of Default have occurred and are “continuing”.

Introduction

The Supreme Court recently considered the existence of the “creditor duty” and when this duty arises in the case of BTI v Sequana. The creditor duty is the duty for company directors to consider the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent or is at real risk of insolvency.

An insolvent estate is where someone dies and there is not enough money in their estate to pay off their debts. Essentially, it’s where the liabilities exceed the assets.

If an estate is insolvent, the beneficiaries under the Deceased’s Will, or anyone entitled under the intestacy rules, will not receive anything because the estate’s creditors will need to be paid off. This includes any gifts of value, such as jewellery, as these should be sold to help meet any liabilities that are due.

In brief

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company’s creditors.

Contents

In what has been referred to as a “momentous decision for company law”, the Supreme Court recently considered whether, when a company is in the ‘insolvency zone’, its directors must have regard to the interests of its creditors in addition to, or instead of, its shareholders.

In October 2022, the English High Court delivered a long-awaited judgment¹ relating to whether or not certain Bankruptcy Events of Default can be cured under the ISDA 2002 and 1992 Master Agreements ("ISDA Master Agreements") - resolving an issue relating to the suspensory effect of conditions precedent to payments and performance under ISDA Master Agreements raised in the English Court of Appeal earlier in the Lehman administration.

Summary

After much anticipation, the UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 - and has authoritatively set the baseline for how directors’ duties evolve as regards shareholders and creditors’ interests when a company is in the zone of insolvency.

Background