引言

英国终审法院最近就 BTI 2014 LLC 诉 Sequana SA 及其他 [2022 UKSC 25] 一案（“Sequana 案”）颁布一份万众期待的判决。Sequana 案的法理将于开曼群岛以至其他普通法司法管辖权区成为极具说服力的法律根据。

Sequana 案是一项有用的判决，原因如下：

• 该案不但确认董事对股东负有受信责任而须真诚以公司最佳利益行事的传统观点，同时指出董事于公司无力偿债或濒临无力偿债或可能进行无力偿债清盘或管理时，须考虑债权人利益或以其行事（“债权人利益责任”）。
• Sequana 为英国终审法院审理的首宗案件裁定董事于哪些情况下必须考虑公司债权人利益，不论债权人利益责任可否于公司无力偿债前触发，以及股东可否认可对债权人利益责任的潜在违反。

背景

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (the “UKSC”) recently delivered its eagerly anticipated judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others[2022 UKSC 25] (“Sequana”). The reasoning in Sequanawill be highly persuasive in the Cayman Islands, as well as other common law jurisdictions.

Sequana is a helpful decision for at least the following reasons:

Creditors of distressed businesses are often frustrated by shareholder-controlled boards when directors pursue strategies that appear to be designed to benefit shareholders at the creditors’ expense. In these circumstances, creditors might consider sending a letter to the board to convince the directors to pivot and adopt alternative strategies or face risk of liability for breaching fiduciary duties. The efficacy of this approach depends on many factors, including the company’s financial condition, the board’s composition and the underlying transactions at issue.

Conyers partner Jonathon Milne and associate Rowana-Kay Campbell in the Cayman Islands, and partner Anna Lin in Hong Kong, explain why the new Cayman restructuring regime is likely to be a welcome addition to the legislative landscape for prudent directors – particularly in light of current macro-economic conditions and the difficulties many companies are facing.

A much-anticipated corporate restructuring regime will be enacted in the Cayman Islands later this year through amendments to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act.

开曼群岛法例中的新设重组制度，大有可能受到一众审慎董事垂青 – 尤其鉴于许多公司正面对种种宏观经济状况及困难。且看康德明开曼群岛合伙人 Jonathon Milne、律师 Rowana-Kay Campbell 及香港合伙人林宛萱如何剖析其原因。

开曼群岛《公司法》第 V 部将于今年修订，当中所订立的公司重组制度，可谓万众期待。

新制度将赋予董事一项新增法定权力，董事可藉此在相关公司陷入财政困难并有意向债权人提出还款方案时，向开曼群岛法院提出呈请以委任具适合资格的重组主任。

对于在责任上须要考虑债权人利益的董事而言，上述新增权力意义重大。

本文将参照最新典据，探讨董事有何责任须考虑债权人利益，以及该等责任会因何种情况而触发。

关于新制度下的其他生效变更，请见《新设重组主任制度概览》一文。

This past year was marked by extraordinary deal activity. Record breaking M&A activity drove record breaking private credit activity. Private equity M&A activity was at a substantial high, with over 8,500 deals worth $2.1 trillion, a 60% increase over 2020. Not surprisingly, in this environment, defaults were at all-time lows. The Proskauer Private Credit Default tracker showed an active default rate of approximately 1% at the end of 2021, compared to 3.6% in 2020.

Despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of a structured dismissal in 2017,[1] there is a growing trend of bankruptcy courts approving structured dismissals of chapter 11 cases following a successful sale of a debtor’s assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The primary investment thesis of a private credit lender is simple — get the loan repaid at maturity. Private credit lenders do not make loans as a means to acquire their borrower’s business. There are circumstances, however, where private credit lenders must be prepared to take ownership when the borrower is distressed and there is no realistic prospect of near-term loan repayment. Becoming the owner of a borrower’s business may very well be the loan recovery option of last resort.

Our private credit clients are preparing for the next restructuring cycle and have called us about ultrafast bankruptcy cases. These chapter 11 cases have grabbed headlines because they lasted less than a day. Specifically, FullBeauty Brands and Sungard Availability Services emerged from bankruptcy in 24 hours and 19 hours, respectively. Is this a trend and which companies are best suited to zip through chapter 11?

A. Prepacks, Pre-Negotiated Cases, and Free-Falls

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.