Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

The High Court in London gave judgment on Friday, 3 July 2020 on the relative ranking of over $10 billion of subordinated liabilities in the administrations of two entities in the Lehman Brothers group.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236

Numerous public-private partnerships have been formed in recent years as a device for funding infrastructure projects such as ports, toll roads and other transportation projects, sewer systems and parking garages. State and local governments, which have been strapped for cash to spend on infrastructure projects, have granted private entities the right to operate various infrastructure projects in exchange for a significant up-front payment and/or periodic payments.

What do the Pocahontas Parkway (Richmond, Va., vicinity), South Bay Expressway (San Diego, Calif.) and Indiana Toll Road have in common?

All are toll road projects that are currently undergoing or have been through a restructuring – or even bankruptcy. While traditional restructuring tools are certainly available in restructuring toll road deals, toll road restructurings also present unique considerations that warrant special attention.