In the current economic environment, directors will be fully focussed on avoiding any breach of their fiduciary duties, particularly if they are directors of companies experiencing or at risk of financial distress.
This client briefing provides a general overview of the duties of directors of Guernsey companies in these circumstances and is not comprehensive. We recommend that clients obtain specific legal advice in relation to any individual matter which may concern them.
Who are the Directors?
Introduction
The current geo-political climate is contributing to the rapid rise to inflation rates in many countries around the world. Governments have reacted with an inevitable increase to interest rates to try and offer some form of counterbalance to rising costs in an effort to stymy localised, and more widespread, economic recessions.
The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.
The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.
In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.
Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.
What is set off?
Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.
In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:
Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security
No duty of care owed for negligent bank reference to undisclosed principal
The Supreme Court has held that a bank which negligently provided a favourable credit reference for one of its customers did not owe a duty of care to an undisclosed principal who acted on that reference.