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:

Different recession, regulatory environment and litigation market leads to different exposures

Whilst there is a clear link between recessionary conditions and claims against financial institutions, financial services professionals and directors and officers, the lessons from the previous recessions in the early 1990s and 2008 onwards may only take us so far in predicting the outcomes this time, given the different economic base going in and the catalysts for this recession (which include the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and high inflation).

There has been no shortage of high-profile insolvencies in the crypto market in recent months across a range of market participants and geographies. These include the US Chapter 11 and Bahamas provisional liquidation of FTX as well as the US Chapter 11 filings of BlockFi, Singapore-based crypto hedge fund ThreeArrows Capital, US-based lenders Celsius Network and Voyager Digital, US-based crypto mining data centre Compute North and German crypto bank Nuri.

In the context of a trade finance dispute, the High Court has considered the contractual interpretation of an irrevocable letter of credit incorporating the commonly used code in the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits 600 (UCP 600), published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). In particular, the court held that the issuer’s interpretation of the letter of credit would, in practice, render the instrument revocable, which was inconsistent with the UCP and therefore not the proper construction.

In what has been referred to as a “momentous decision for company law”, the Supreme Court recently considered whether, when a company is in the ‘insolvency zone’, its directors must have regard to the interests of its creditors in addition to, or instead of, its shareholders.

Chief Justice Hammerschlag, sitting in the New South Wales Supreme Court (the Court), has delivered a judgement of importance to secured creditor and insolvency practitioners alike in Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Atlas CTL Pty Ltd (Recs and Mngrs Apptd) (In liq) [2022] NSWSC 573 (Atlas).

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) has commenced an inquiry into the “effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy”.^[1]

Jersey law ruling will have far reaching ramifications for trust administration in common law jurisdictions

A much-anticipated UK decision confirms directors' obligations to creditors, but changes little in practice

In a judgment rendered on 10 October 2021, the Dubai Court of First Instance had concluded that current and former directors and managers of Marka were personally liable towards creditors of the company merely on the basis that the assets of the company were not sufficient to pay at least 20% of its debts. The 20% threshold was set in onshore Federal Decree Law No. (9) of 2016 on Bankruptcy (the Bankruptcy Law) as it then was, and the Court determined that liability applied to current and former directors and managers without distinction where the threshold is not met.