The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in the Sequana case (handed down on 5 October 2022)^[1] is the first time that the UK’s highest court has been asked to consider the proposition that directors are, in certain circumstances, under a duty in respect of creditors’ interests as distinct from shareholders’ interests.

The key takeaway points from this ‘momentous decision for company law’ (the words of Lady Arden who gave one of the leading judgments) are:

What are the new provisions?

Introduction

On 20 May 2020, the UK Government published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”). The Bill was published in response to Covid-19 with a view to assisting companies and directors through these challenging times.

Introduction

On 28 March 2020, the UK Government announced upcoming insolvency law reforms in response to Covid-19, intended to help companies and directors.

On 23 April 2020, the UK Government announced further measures to protect the UK high street from aggressive rent collection by prohibiting the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions to collect rent which was unpaid due to difficulties caused by Covid-19. However, at the time, it was unclear from the announcement as to whether these prohibitions would extend beyond unpaid rent to other debts.

Introduction

On Saturday (28 March 2020) the UK Government announced certain changes to insolvency laws in response to COVID-19, intended to help companies and directors.

There are two aspects to the changes:

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

A real, as opposed to remote, risk of insolvency is not necessarily enough for the duties of a board of directors to switch from being owed to its shareholders to being owed to its creditors.

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.