商事合同中通常会订有合同解除条款，比如满足约定条件或情形下，一方得以解除合同的单方解除条款。单方解除条款系商事主体在一定情形下为脱离合同而预先设置的退出机制，它保证了商事主体的意思自治，同时避免了各方受到已无价值的合同关系的拖累。近几年来，受经济大环境的影响，不少商事主体的经营遭遇困难，破产成为企业面临的高概率情形。破产不仅会影响到破产企业本身，亦会影响与破产企业签署商业合同的其他主体，例如，在《企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）第十八条的规定下，前述单方解除权的行使就会受到一定限制。在本文中，我们将提示和阐释该限制，并提出相应的解决方案与风险防范措施。

一、合同约定解除权

一份完整的合同通常会约定合同解除的条款，通常包括双方协商一致解除合同，以及约定条件下一方单方解除合同。关于单方解除合同条款，一般会有类似以下的约定：

“当一方进入破产程序、破产重整、清盘、资不抵债或其它类似的法律程序时，另一方有权立即书面通知对方解除合同。”

Welcome to the eighth edition of our quarterly disputes newsletter, which covers key developments in the dispute resolution world over the last three months or so.

In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

Since 2021, soaring wholesale energy costs have caused concern for businesses already battling a difficult economic climate with wider inflationary pressures, such as higher interest rates.  

The government's mini-budget on 23 September 2022 cancelled the planned increase in the corporate tax rate (the proposed increase from 19% to 25%). This will assist those companies which are profit-making, but without support to reduce the cost base, this provides limited relief to others.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.

At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.  

Background

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) delivered a landmark judgment regarding directors’ duties in an insolvency context. In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25, the UKSC considered the circumstances in which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors when exercising duties owed to the company and what obligations that imposes on directors.

The Insolvency and Companies Court has recognised Chapter 11 Proceedings in the US in respect of the manufacturer of controversial surgical mesh products which have generated a significant number of claims worldwide. The British Claimants have had their claims stayed as a result of this recognition.

Re Astora Women’s Health LLC [2022] EWHC 2412 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (the “UKSC”) recently delivered its eagerly anticipated judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others[2022 UKSC 25] (“Sequana”). The reasoning in Sequanawill be highly persuasive in the Cayman Islands, as well as other common law jurisdictions.

Sequana is a helpful decision for at least the following reasons: