Kate Colman, Sarah Levin and Ryan Al-Hakim, Milbank LLP

This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.

Introduction

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 

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 (Supreme Court - BTI v Sequana) concerning the fiduciary duty of directors to act in good faith in the interests of the company.

The long awaited Sequana Supreme Court judgment[1] has provided some welcome clarity around the duties of the directors of a company in the "twilight zone" – i.e. where the company is facing financial difficulties.

A recent Supreme Court decision serves as a reminder for directors to take specialist legal advice at an early stage to avoid potential liability

Managing a company’s business and making strategic and operational decisions is increasingly the subject of considerable internal and external pressures.

Summary

The Supreme Court held that when directors know, or ought to know, that the company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency, or that an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable, they must consider the interests of creditors, balancing them against the interests of shareholders where they may conflict. The greater the company’s financial difficulties, the more the directors should prioritise the interests of creditors.

Background

Howard Morris and Sonya Van de Graaff, Morrison & Foerster LLP and Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.

Scope of the chapter

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA was handed down on 5 October 2022.

The Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which company directors must exercise their duties under s.172 Companies Act 2006 (CA06) with regard to the interests of the creditors and affirmed the position reached by the Court of Appeal.

Comment

The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.

The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Others [2022] UKSC 25

In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise hen a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.