This week:

The Courts, practitioners and leading textbooks have always assumed that the Limitation Act 1980 (the Limitation Act) does not apply to claims for relief from unfair prejudice under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the Companies Act).

In THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 158, the Court of Appeal examined the basis for that assumption and unanimously decided that:

On 31 October 2023, Federal Law No. 51 of 2023 Promulgating the Financial and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) was published in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Official Gazette, repealing the prior federal law on bankruptcy (Federal Law No. 9 of 2016, the Prior Law) and significantly developing the bankruptcy regime in the UAE.

This week:

This week:

• The court imposes a compensation order on a disqualified director, only the second order made since 2015

Court imposes compensation order on disqualified director

The court has ordered a disqualified director of an insolvent company to pay personal compensation to creditors.

The court orders a disqualified director of an insolvent company to pay personal compensation to creditors.

This is only the second time the courts have considered a personal compensation order against a disqualified director since their introduction in 2015.

What happened?

Secretary of State v Barnsby [2023] EWHC 2284 (Ch) concerned an individual who was the sole director and majority shareholder of a company that sold package holidays.

The High Court has considered the point at which the directors’ duty to consider the interests of creditors arose in the context of a tax mitigation scheme that ultimately failed

The judge found that the duty to consider creditors’ interests had arisen once the directors had become aware that there was a real risk that the scheme would fail and that the company would therefore be unable to pay its debts.

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。

简介

英国最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中颁下了重要裁决，其重要之处在于最高法院深入探讨了董事考虑债权人权益的责任，是只需出现真正的无力偿债风险便已触发，还是在相当可能或濒临无力偿债时才触发。

背景

本案的第二及第三答辩人为AWA公司（「该公司」）的董事。于2009年5月，他们安排该公司向该公司唯一股东（「第一答辩人」）派发1.35亿欧元的股息（「该股息」），以抵销第一答辩人结欠该公司的债务。该公司在支付该股息时，其资产负债表及现金流均处于具偿债能力的状况。然而，该公司有一项与污染相关而金额未定的长期或然负债，导致该公司产生未来可能无力偿债的真正风险。