In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

Following the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana¹ at the end of 2022, the New Zealand Supreme Court has now weighed in on the issue of the duties owed by directors of a company in the zone of insolvency in a long-running case involving the liquidation estate of Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited.²

The Cayman Islands Grand Court recently delivered its judgment in Re Shinsun Holdings (Group) Co., Ltd. FSD 192 of 2022 (DDJ) (21 April 2023) (unreported) (the “Shinsun Judgment”) in which the court determined the ultimate beneficial owner of bonds, held through Euroclear, did not have standing or authority to progress a winding up petition as a contingent creditor. In this article, we explore similar cases in other offshore and common law jurisdictions.

Shinsun Judgment and the Cayman Position

根据英国最高法院 2022 年底 Sequana¹ 的判决 ，新西兰最高法院在涉及 Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited²清算财产的长期案件中，对破产区公司董事所承担的义务问题进行了权衡及作出有力贡献。

当世界各地的董事们正努力应对各种宏观经济因素带来的困难和不确定时期时，这些决策为董事们应采取哪些保护自己及公司的方法提供了有用且及时的指导。

这可能意味着听取有关停止交易的建议，尝试签订重组支持协议或任命官员提供协助。在开曼群岛，新的重组支持官员制度提供了一个有用的体系，为董事提供休整期，以便在适当的情况下促进和实施可行的计划。

Mainzeal 的最新决定再次提醒大家，公司董事未能采纳建议和采取适当行动可能会导致严重后果。

Mainzeal 决定

The Federal Court of Australia recently determined an application brought by the administrators of a company in voluntary administration seeking judicial guidance on how to deal with claims for costs and interests resulting from two prior arbitrations. The key issue was whether the costs and interests awarded in the previous arbitrations were admissible to proof in the administration of the company, having regard to the fact that the relevant arbitral awards were made after the appointment of administrators.

The Court made a distinction between the two arbitrations as follows:

1.1 The overriding objective

(1) The overriding objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.

(2) Dealing justly with the case includes –

(a) ensuring, so far as is practicable, that the parties are on an equal footing;

(b) saving expense;

(c) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the –

(i) amount of money involved;

(ii) importance of the case;

(iii) complexity of the issues; and (iv) financial position of each party;

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously; and

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) has delivered its report following 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”.

The English Court of Appeal has clarified the interpretation of two aspects of s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the legislation which provides a mechanism for the avoidance of transactions which have been made for the purpose of defrauding creditors:Invest Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini [2023] EWCA Civ 555.

Two recent cases, Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (the “GOCC Case“) and Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581 (the “Trinity Case“), reaffirm