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.

On 1 September 2016, the Korean Court issued orders commencing rehabilitation proceedings for Hanjin and staying proceedings against it and its assets (Korean Orders).

The purpose of the Korean proceeding is to rehabilitate the insolvent debtor company, Hanjin, by restructuring its debts. The debts are restructured according to a rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors and the Korean Court. The aim is to protect Hanjin while it trades out of its debt.

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