After a lull during the pandemic, it is expected that the number of company insolvencies in Ireland will increase as financial pressures on businesses intensify following the withdrawal of temporary government supports. Recent changes to directors’ duties bring into sharp focus the actions of, and decisions taken by, company directors in the period leading up to the insolvent liquidation of a company.

The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 is a significant decision for the law of directors’ duties.

The Autumn budget will have done little to ease the concerns of companies facing significant trading pressures as the country tries to get back on its feet following the pandemic, the ongoing effects of Brexit, the Ukraine conflict and the current cost of living crisis. Inflation has now topped its forecasted peak at 11.1%; there are soaring energy prices and the UK is now officially in recession.

Commercial insolvency can affect stakeholders located in multiple jurisdictions and possessing diverse legal rights. A recent notable trend in Canadian insolvency law is the centralization in insolvency proceedings, where courts have recognized that an effective restructuring of an insolvent business may depend on the centralization of stakeholder claims in a single proceeding. This applies even when such an approach would be inconsistent with the parties’ contractual rights, statutory laws or Canada’s federal structure outside of the insolvency context.

The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) came into force on 1 August 2016 and replaced the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”).

The previous 1930 Act had enabled a third party to bring a claim directly against an insurer where the insured had become insolvent, however a claimant had to (i) restore a dissolved company to the register of companies and obtain the leave of the court to allow proceedings to be commenced; (ii) obtain judgment against the insured; and (iii) commence separate proceedings against the insurer.

In the recent case of Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 (Peace River), the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) clarified the circumstances in which an otherwise valid arbitration agreement may be held to be inoperative in the context of a court-ordered receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3 (the BIA).

BACKGROUND

Litigation funding continues to be a popular investment vehicle in the UK as the assets available to funders topped £2bn at the start of the decade. Bloomberg has noted that a “flood of money” was moving into the area. This trend appears likely to continue as funders are attracted to litigation as an investment vehicle as economic uncertainty persists and the post-COVID litigation landscape develops.

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court delivered its long awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC V Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 dismissing an appeal by BTI. Lord Reed and Lady Arden each gave their own judgments which concurred, largely applying the same reasoning, with the judgment of Lord Briggs with whom Lord Kitchen and Lord Hodge agreed.

In the April 2022 decision of Harte Gold Corp. (Re), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [Commercial List] (the Court) provides guidance on the appropriate use of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in insolvency proceedings and enumerates key questions that must be addressed prior to the granting of an RVO. It is clear that the Court's reasoning in Harte Gold will have far reaching implications.

The fallout from failed tax saving arrangements using Employee Benefit Trusts (“EBTs”) continues. In Hunt, directors who in reliance on tax advice from a firm of accountants, arranged for a company to use an EBT, were found not in breach of duty.  The decision whilst of comfort to directors, increases the likelihood of recovery actions following failed tax saving schemes shifting back on the accountancy firm tax advisors. 

Background