In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.
In the recent decision of Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (dated 27 March 2024), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld a director’s breach of duty by authorising the payment of a dividend and the repayment of a loan to himself. The decision, considering Sequana, sheds further important light on the directors’ duty to consider or act in the interest of the company’s creditors, coined as “creditor duty”.
The Facts – Briefly Stated
The Facts – Shortly Stated
Introduction
UK Supreme Court gives important judgment on directors’ “creditor duty”
The UK Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors [2022] UKSC 25[1] has given an important judgment clarifying the nature of the so-called “creditor duty.” The “creditor duty” is an aspect of the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the interests of their company which requires the directors to take into account the interests of creditors in an insolvency, or borderline insolvency, context.
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
What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?
The recently published Financial Services and Markets Bill (FSM Bill) is intended to recast the U.K.’s regulatory architecture post-Brexit. It was introduced to Parliament on 20 July 2022. The Bill implements the outcomes of the Future Regulatory Framework Review, which assessed whether the U.K.
The recently published Financial Services and Markets Bill (FSM Bill) is intended to recast the U.K.’s regulatory architecture post-Brexit. It was introduced to Parliament on 20 July 2022. The Bill implements the outcomes of the Future Regulatory Framework Review, which assessed whether the U.K.
Two years on: review of CIGA permanent measures