UK Supreme Court gives important judgment on directors’ “creditor duty”

The UK Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors [2022] UKSC 25[1] has given an important judgment clarifying the nature of the so-called “creditor duty.”  The “creditor duty” is an aspect of the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the interests of their company which requires the directors to take into account the interests of creditors in an insolvency, or borderline insolvency, context.

You’ve gotta admire the Debtor in In re Deirdre Ventura.

Debtor has been fighting to save a Bed and Breakfast business through bankruptcy: beginning in 2018 with a regular Chapter 11, and then struggling to get into Subchapter V.

Debtor’s is a you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up story of persistence through adversity.

Debtor has survived, for example, an inexplicably-bad appellate opinion refusing to allow Debtor’s Subchapter V election. The appellate opinion declares:

Assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) has existed for centuries under the common law of England and the United States. And the ABC process has worked well under that common law!

ABC Function

ABC has been an effective tool in the toolbox of debtor and creditor remedies for resolving financial stress. Specifically, ABC allows a failing business to shut down with efficiently and credibility:

Part I: Introduction and Background Cryptoassets & Insolvency 2 Introduction Cryptoassets have emerged from relative obscurity to become an increasingly significant and mainstream presence: in just five years the global market cap for cryptocurrencies rose from around $15bn to over $3tn at its peak in November of last year.

The interrelationship between an assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) proceeding and an involuntary bankruptcy filing, for the same debtor, is governed by various portions of the Bankruptcy Code.

But that relationship remains ill-defined, nonetheless.

What follows is an attempt to summarize a bankruptcy court opinion dealing with that relationship. And here is two of its main conclusions:

On June 21, 2022, Congress and the President (i) extend the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility, and (ii) adjust other Subchapter V rules.[Fn. 1]

One of the adjustments is this:

“Without these [mediated] settlements, there is no Plan.”

• From Opinion on Plan confirmation, In re Boy Scouts of America, Case No. 20-10343, Delaware Bankruptcy Court, Doc. 10136, at 80 (issued July 29, 2022).

The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy has achieved a milestone: on July 29, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issues a 281-page Opinion on confirmation of Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization. The Opinion is generally favorable toward Plan confirmation but identifies a number of issues remaining to be resolved.

“[T]he bankruptcy court— . . . (2) shall excuse compliance . . . if . . . an assignee for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors . . . was appointed or took possession more than 120 days before the date of the filing of the petition, unless . . . necessary to prevent fraud or injustice.”

11 U.S.C. § 543(d)(2) (emphasis added).[Fn. 1]

On August 15, 2022, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates its prior In re Hammons opinion, which deals with remedies for unconstitutionally lower quarterly fees charged to bankruptcy debtors in Alabama and North Carolina.[Fn. 1]

Opinion Points

Check out these points from the Hammons opinion:

Congress must be allowed“to fashion a modern bankruptcy system which places the basic rudiments of the bankruptcy process in the hands of an expert equitable tribunal.”

—from Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 94 (1989) (Blackmun dissent, emphasis added).

Justice Blackmun had a point—back in 1989—that remains true today: