Last week HM Treasury published its much anticipated consultation paper on introducing a dedicated Insurer Resolution Regime (IRR) in the UK, which would implement key international standards.

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.

One of the key issues facing all public companies during the COVID-19 crisis is how and when to update necessary market disclosures relating to the risk impact of the pandemic on their business.

History has taught us that prolonged periods of market volatility increase the risks of litigation against both companies and their governing boards, and that the way in which they act now can have long-lasting effects.

Some companies may face severe solvency issues, which will lead to questions around the disclosure of the company’s financial position.

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