The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (“SC”) has recently handed down a decision in the case of BTI v Sequana, dealing with the powers and duties of company directors. The appeal was expected to be of considerable importance.

This alert is especially relevant to companies, and directors of companies, in financial distress, as well as creditors and insolvency practitioners.

Key Takeaways

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Ors [2022] UKSC 25. This judgment arose from an appeal brought by BTI 2014 LLC against a decision of the English Court of Appeal in 2019.

The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment, which as Lord Reed noted, considered issues that go to the heart of our understanding of company law and are of considerable practical importance to the management of companies.

Background to the Appeal

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: The actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has, in its judgment dated September 19, 2022, in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan [Civil Appeal No. 563 of 2020], held that in deciding cases pertaining to insider trading, the actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential.

Under Irish and UK law, company directors owe fiduciary duties to act in good faith in the interests of the company. The company's interests in this context usually means the collective best interests of the members. However, UK and Irish authorities have developed directors' common law duties, such that in cases of insolvency, directors have a duty to consider the interests of the company's creditors.

The much-anticipated UK Supreme Court decision in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Ors was finally released, giving clarity to directors and insolvency practitioners about the existence, scope and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”. A relatively recent development in English law, the creditor duty is in fact really a dormant creature of the existing directors’ fiduciary duties that awakens in an insolvency, or near insolvency, context.

Introduction

The court ruled that:

Insolvency Proceedings are commenced upon bankruptcy of a debtor. In simple terms, bankruptcy is inability of a corporate debtor to pay back its creditors. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) governs insolvency proceedings in India. A corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is a recovery mechanism for the creditors of the corporate debtor and the CIRP can be initiated under Section 7 & Section 9 of the IBC.

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has addressed the questions of whether there is a duty owed to creditor where a company may be at risk of insolvency, and the point at which that duty is triggered.

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has amended the regulatory framework (“Framework”) for asset reconstruction companies (“ARCs”) on October 11, 2022. Since inception, ARCs have grown in number and size, however their potential for resolving stressed assets is yet to be realised. Accordingly, based on the recommendation of a committee, RBI has reviewed the existing regulatory regime applicable to ARCs and put forth the Framework.

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