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:

The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.

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.

Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.