When Can a Subsidiary Be Liable for the Actions of Its Owners?

In a recent case, BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others, the High Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which the directors of a company are required to consider the interests of creditors and the extent to which the payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

This Court of Appeal decision in (1)TopBrandsLtd(2) LemioneServicesLtdv (1) Gagen Dulari Sharma (2) Barry John Ward (as former liquidators of Mama Milla Ltd) (2015) is noteworthy as it underlines that the “illegality defence” is still in a state of flux and in need of clarification by the Supreme Court.

Jetivia S.A. & Anor v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liq) & Ors [2015] UKSC 23

Jetivia S.A. and another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

Insolvency practitioners and creditors alike will welcome the decision handed down by the Supreme Court on 22 April 2015. It reduces the wiggle room given to delinquent directors of insolvent companies when claims are brought against them, and confirms the extra-territorial effect of claims against third parties under the fraudulent trading provisions in section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background & Facts

Key Points

Where a sole director and shareholder of a company had breached fiduciary duties he could not ratify the breach if the company was insolvent;

Claims against the company in liquidation by dishonest assisting parties could not be set off under rule 4.90 Insolvency Rules against any liability they had in damages for that assistance.

The Facts

The English Court of Appeal decision in Caterpillar v John Holt & Company, and its analysis of “retention of title” and “no set-off” clauses, will be of interest to commodity traders, compliance officers and legal counsel in industries dealing with energy and natural resources internationally.

Following insolvency, creditors and the (now insolvent) company can claim back losses from directors who breached their duties prior to the business breaking down. But it is not just formal directors – it is any individuals who actually control the company and have made themselves ‘shadow directors’ by doing so. In this way, creditors can recoup funds to meet the company’s debts from the individual directors who caused the loss of such funds.

The English Court has devised a new route to impose liability on a company's UBO who strips assets from the company leaving creditors to claim in its insolvency. UBOs feeling comfortable about the security of their corporate veil after the Supreme Court’s decision in Prest^[1], will need to look carefully at this recent decision, which may be applied in other jurisdictions with corporate laws based on English law, such as BVI and Cyprus.

The High Court has held that a bank owed a duty of care to its customer when on notice that an agent acting for the customer was misusing his authority. In the case of Singularis Holdings Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch), a bank was liable in negligence to its customer since it was on notice that its customer was at risk of being defrauded by its director but failed to stop payments made for the purpose of misappropriating funds of the company.

The Facts