In a recent decision, the High Court refused to grant the Financial Times access to the whole of the Secretary of State's affirmation in support of directors' disqualification proceedings against Alexander Greensill, pursuant to either CPR 5.4C or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS") to pay equitable compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer's joint liquidators: Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch).

The collapse of UK retailer British Home Stores ("BHS") in 2016 remains one of the most high-profile corporate insolvencies of recent times. It went from being a household name across the UK, with over 11,000 employees, to having reported debts of £1.3 billion, including a pension deficit of nearly £600 million. The group's demise saw the closure of some 164 stores nationwide and significant job losses.

In the recent case of Re LYHFL Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch), the High Court has considered the proper interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(b), Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, by which directors can apply to court for an order putting the company into administration.

Drawing on previous authorities concerning this and similar provisions, the Court concluded that an individual director has no power to make such an application without the approval of the majority of the company's directors and a valid board resolution.

Facts

On the eve of trial, the Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, has discontinued disqualification proceedings brought in January 2021 against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc. The trial, which had been listed for around 13 weeks (and originally as long as 6 months) had been due to start on Monday 16 October 2023.

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

Although not directly concerned with directors' liabilities, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank PLC provides further clarity on the circumstances in which a distressed or insolvent company may seek to make claims against its directors.

INTRODUCTION

The key aspects affecting directors' liabilities presented in the Supreme Court ruling are that:

Introduction

The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.

Background

簡介

英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決，其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任，是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發，還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。

背景

本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司（「該公司」）的董事。於2009年5月，他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東（「第一答辯人」）派發1.35億歐元的股息（「該股息」），以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時，其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而，該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債，導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。