The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.

The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Others [2022] UKSC 25

In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise hen a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 (Supreme Court - BTI v Sequana) concerning the fiduciary duty of directors to act in good faith in the interests of the company.

The long awaited Sequana Supreme Court judgment[1] has provided some welcome clarity around the duties of the directors of a company in the "twilight zone" – i.e. where the company is facing financial difficulties.

A recent Supreme Court decision serves as a reminder for directors to take specialist legal advice at an early stage to avoid potential liability

Managing a company’s business and making strategic and operational decisions is increasingly the subject of considerable internal and external pressures.

Summary

The Supreme Court held that when directors know, or ought to know, that the company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency, or that an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable, they must consider the interests of creditors, balancing them against the interests of shareholders where they may conflict. The greater the company’s financial difficulties, the more the directors should prioritise the interests of creditors.

Background

Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

The High Court has held that where companies have adopted the model articles without amendment, any sole director acting has the power to pass resolutions acting alone.

Before October 3, 2022, the rules of procedure in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (unlike those in most other appeal courts in Canada) imposed a stay of proceedings in most cases as soon as a Notice of Appeal was served and filed. That has now changed.

Robert Chan, instructed by Leon Lai & Co, represented D2-Leung Yung (“Leung”), the former Chief Executive Officer of Peace Mark (Holdings) Ltd, to resist the Plaintiffs’ application to amend their claim to include a plea of wilful default or wilful negligence.