Are you prepared to take advantage if one of your competitors falls into difficult times or enters an insolvency process? Do you know your way around buying from a distressed seller? What are the things you need to know? How can you prepare? What will make your bid most attractive?

Recent high profile collapses such as HMV have highlighted the opportunities that can be found within the distressed space – if you are prepared and know how to act swiftly.

It was a painful outcome for the administrator of ARY Digital UK Limited (“ARY”) when he was found in breach of duty and liable to pay £743,750.

The case of Brewer and another (as joint liquidators of ARY Digital UK Ltd) vIqbal [2019] EWHC 182 (Ch) reminds office holders of the importance of understanding what assets they are selling, ensuring that correct marketing processes are employed and obtaining proper valuations.

The Court of Appeal decision in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd turns on the wording of that particular contract, but was, in part, unexpected.

This decision does not reflect the generally held view (prior to this case) that liquidated damages will be recoverable until the point of termination at least.

Background

On 6 February 2019 the Court of Appeal gave its decision dismissing Sequana’s appeal against a decision of the High Court in 2016, that payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86).

Background

In high stakes restructurings, directors can be under significant pressure from different parts of the capital structure to take (or refrain from taking) certain actions. It is critical that the board understands whether it owes duties to members or creditors (or both). For such an important issue, the law has previously been remarkably unclear.

SUMMARY

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“CA”) made a significant ruling on two matters affecting the powers and duties of directors of English companies.

It is little wonder why Andrew Tinkler’s removal from the Stobart Group (and subsequent court case) attracted so much media attention:

A real, as opposed to remote, risk of insolvency is not necessarily enough for the duties of a board of directors to switch from being owed to its shareholders to being owed to its creditors.

Introduction

In light of the decisions made in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2019] EWCA Civ 112 (the Sequana case), consideration may need to be given to the interests of creditors when declaring a dividend. The Court of Appeal in the Sequana case concluded that the payment of an otherwise lawful dividend constituted a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Background to the Sequana Case

There are limits on the ability of shareholders to ratify dubious acts of the directors – it cannot be effective if the interests of existing creditors have become paramount (so as to subordinate the duties owed to shareholders) and are prejudiced. This is particularly relevant to upstream guarantees. On 6th February, the Court of Appeal gave its 51-page judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A which is relevant to exactly this point.