Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Shareholder disputes can often be complex and emotionally charged, particularly in small or family-owned companies where personal relationships and business interests are deeply intertwined. When such disputes reach an impasse, the law provides several mechanisms for resolution. In particular, disgruntled shareholders have the ability to bring statutory based claims against the company.

When individuals and certain entities (such as partnerships, trusts and other unincorporated bodies) have debts that they are unable to repay to their creditors, they may consider or be faced with bankruptcy, which is known as sequestration in Scotland. However, sequestration is just one avenue. Alternative statutory debt solutions are available, which can provide breathing space and allow debts to be repaid over time, without creditor pressure.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

The latest quarterly figures from The Insolvency Service for Q4 of 2023, covering the period October to December, show that company insolvency volumes in England and Wales reached a 30-year high. 25,158 registered companies entered some form of insolvency in 2023. The food and drink sector has not been immune to this, and indeed has seen some of the biggest rises in insolvency as many businesses face significant financial challenges.

Multiple headwinds

We have recently published a few blogs on the hot topic of company insolvencies, including more specifically about:

The English High Court decision of Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 (Ch) has provided the most substantive authority on directors' duties to creditors since the decision of the Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 (“Sequana”). The case specifically considered the point at which a director’s duty to take into account the interests of creditors arises.

The festive period is a time for celebrating with loved ones, enjoying food and drink, and exchanging gifts. But it can also bring financial challenges. With rising living costs, interest rates at levels not seen for over a decade, and inflation still high, the cost of Christmas can present a further struggle, leaving many overstretched and facing unmanageable debts and insolvency come January.

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。