The High Court has clarified the grounds for challenging a CVA for guarantee creditors.
Background
Mizen Design/Build Ltd's (Mizen) directors proposed a CVA stating that this would lead to a better result for unsecured creditors than the likely alternative, administration.
The CVA compromised guarantee creditors' ability both to bring a claim against Mizen and to call upon their performance guarantees against Mizen's parent company (the Parent Guarantor).
This recent decision has opened up a new opportunity for creditors who are not satisfied with a proposal to put forward their own restructuring plan.
Background
Good Box Co Labs Limited (the Company), a fintech start-up, developed contactless payment technologies in the charity sector.
It entered administration in June 2022 on the application of NGI Systems Limited (NGI) a principal technology supplier, creditor and shareholder of the Company.
CargoLogicAir Limited (the Company) was the UK's only all-cargo main deck freight airline. Due to sanctions imposed on its Russian owner, the Company was unable to effectively trade and pay its debts as they fell due despite obtaining a 'Basic Needs Licence'. Its sole director applied to appoint administrators.
Issues
The court considered two key issues:
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across member states, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.
It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
Aims law:
the recovery of assets
the efficiency of proceedings
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
Aims
The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across Member States, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.
It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law:
the recovery of assets
the efficiency of proceedings, and
はじめに
最近、イギリス（United Kingdom、以下同じ）最高裁判所のある判決では、破産した会社または破産に近い会社の取締役が債権者の利益を考慮に入れる義務が明確になりました。BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25はイギリスの会社法に関連していますが、英連邦全体、特にオフショア法域での破産における取締役義務についての解釈などに、広範囲にわたる影響を及ぼします。
Sequana
簡介
在最近英国最高法院的一项判决中，资不抵债或接近资不抵债的公司的董事有责任考虑债权人的利益。虽然 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 涉及英国公司法，但它将对理解英联邦地区清盘情况下的董事职责产生深远影响，尤其是在离岸司法管辖区。
Sequana
普通法和 2006 年《公司法》均规定公司董事有义务以诚信行事，以促进公司的成功。传统观点认为，公司利益等同于公司股东的利益。近几十年来，法律开始承认，当公司濒临破产或资不抵债时，公司债权人的利益可能会受到公司管理层的影响。因此，法律开始要求董事在破产情况下履行对公司的信托义务时考虑债权人的利益。这条被称为 West Mercia 规则（源自 West Mercia Safetywear Ltd (in liq) v Dodd [1988] BCLC 250）的规则从未在案例中得到一致解释，而法院使用的语言经常混淆规则的性质及其产生的确切情况。
Introduction
In a recent decision, the United Kingdom Supreme Court clarified the duty of directors of insolvent or near insolvent companies to consider the interests of creditors. While BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 relates to company law in the United Kingdom, it will have far reaching implications on the understanding of directors' duties relating to insolvency across the commonwealth and, in particular, offshore jurisdictions.
Sequana
Re Bitumina Industries Ltd (in administration); Manning and another v Neste AB and another [2022].
This was an application by joint administrators for directions on the validity of a floating charge granted to a connected party at a 'relevant time' and seemingly invalid under s245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
Background