Due to the recent challenging economic environment, the law’s treatment of creditors’ interests in a restructuring or insolvency has been a hot topic. From a creditor’s perspective, its objective will be straightforward: to maximize its recovery as soon as possible when its interests are put at risk by financial challenges facing the debtor. From a shareholder’s perspective, its agenda will generally be quite different: to achieve certainty and stability through a debt restructuring so that the company can stay afloat and carry on business without the risk of a winding up order.
With a marked increase in large-scale cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere, there is a greater focus on principles of comity and co-operation between courts and collaboration between officeholders.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered its (second) opinion in the case of In re Ultra Petroleum Corporation, Case No. 21-20008, on October 14, 2022, potentially widening a circuit split on the issue of “make-whole” payments. With the circuit split potentially growing, this issue could be ripe for a grant of certiorari.
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:
The Bankruptcy Protector
On 5 October 2022 the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down its “momentous” decision in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others1. The case addresses issues of ‘‘considerable practical importance to the management of companies’’, in particular directors’ duties during insolvency or the onset of insolvency.
To the long list of things people love about lawyers we can add last week’s holding by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that “Blvd.” is utterly unrecognizable as “Boulevard” – at least by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted in Florida.
The Bankruptcy Protector
On August 18, 2022, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in In re BWGS, LLC, No. 19-01487-JMC-7A, 2022 WL 3568045 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Aug. 18, 2022), narrowly interpreted the safe harbor provision in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code by refusing to dismiss a lawsuit against a guarantor whose liability was eliminated by the debtor’s payment to the bank that held the guarantee.
Overview on Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code
The Bankruptcy Protector
Bankruptcy Basics for New and Non-Bankruptcy Attorneys
This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will discuss sales of assets “free and clear” under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.