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.

[2019] EWCA Civ 27

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Ors [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Others [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the '1986 Act').

The first instance decision:

If your company has gone into liquidation and you are in the process of setting up a new business, you may want to use the same or a similar company name. However, if you either act as director or are involved in the management of the new company with the same or similar name as the insolvent company, you run the risk of both civil and criminal liability if you don’t comply with the restrictions under the Insolvency Act 1986.

No. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original finding, namely that no duty to consider AWA’s creditors had arisen. Whilst AWA’s directors had made provision for the contingent liabilities in question, this did not itself mean AWA was insolvent or close to insolvency. In fact, it was not, and so the duty to consider AWA’s creditors never arose.

Practical implications

Although this decision simply confirms the High Court’s original decision, it emphasises the care and vigilance with which directors of a company need to act when paying dividends.

The High Court of England & Wales considered, in respect of the delayed completion of a solar project, the appropriate end date for liquidated damages under a terminated construction contract.

It is usual and standard for a construction contract to contain a liquidated damages clause. It is also common for a termination clause to be included and it is not unusual for it to be exercised. Strangely, however, it is not clear under English law how these two concepts interact.

In 2018 the Insolvency Service recorded that Company insolvencies were at their highest level since 2014, with a slight increase of 0.7% on 2017. Individual insolvencies were also at their highest level since 2011 with an increase of 16.2% on2017. There was a 19.9% increase on Individual Voluntary Arrangements (“IVAs”) which is the highest level ever recorded. With this in mind, businesses need to focus on tight cash flow across all areas and understand the importance of putting a credit policy in place.