Arising from the dramatic collapse of what was once one of Britain's most famous high street names, British Home Stores ("BHS"), the claims brought by the liquidators of the BHS group companies (the "BHS Group") against its former directors were already newsworthy.
Introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, the restructuring plans regime set out in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Plans) has quickly proven a popular route for corporate financial rescue. This is in large part due to the fact that it allows for a plan to be imposed upon dissenting creditor classes in certain circumstances. This is known as "cross-class cramdown".
Breathing Spaces and Mental Health Crisis Moratoriums (MHCM) were introduced by the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the "2020 Regulations").
An analysis of recent statistics show what the Insolvency and Tax Disputes teams at Mishcon de Reya have long experienced – that HMRC is not in the habit of overlooking an outstanding debt.
Amendments to the director disqualification regime, enacted in 2015, enable the Insolvency Service (on the request of a creditor of an insolvent company) to seek a compensatory remedy against a disqualified director for the benefit of the creditor(s). This empowers a creditor to take action where an insolvency officer may be unable, or unwilling, to do so.
This case relates to the principle that creditors with the benefit of a third-party debt order, are ostensibly in a better position than other unsecured creditors of an insolvent estate.
We have identified four judgments from 2022 which are significant for those in the private equity sector and may have particular relevance for sponsors, shareholders, management teams and/or appointees to boards. In this overview we summarise the key points and some of the practical implications.
The decisions we address are:
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。