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.

Executive Summary

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:

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.

Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?

Cayman Islands companies have dominated the restructuring news cycle of late for a variety of reasons, including recent judicial commentary as to the effect of obtaining recognition under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber once observed that “issues as to the interplay between environmental law and bankruptcy are among the thorniest on the litigation map.” Difficulties navigating this interplay largely stem from the inherent conflict between the goals of bankruptcy and environmental laws, with the former aimed at providing debtors with a fresh start, while the latter cast a broad net to hold parties (even some innocent parties) responsible for past harm to the environment.