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.
It is a defence to an unfair preference claim to show there were no reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company.
Referred to as the ‘good faith defence’, the creditor has the onus of establishing the defence contained in section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Suspicion of insolvency
The courts have identified the following principles with respect to the good faith defence:
In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).
There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.
In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.
If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.
However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.
Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged
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