Introduction

An insolvent estate is where someone dies and there is not enough money in their estate to pay off their debts. Essentially, it’s where the liabilities exceed the assets.

If an estate is insolvent, the beneficiaries under the Deceased’s Will, or anyone entitled under the intestacy rules, will not receive anything because the estate’s creditors will need to be paid off. This includes any gifts of value, such as jewellery, as these should be sold to help meet any liabilities that are due.

In brief

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company’s creditors.

Contents

For some reason, there is a fascination out there (not sure where, exactly) with having every assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) supervised by a court from the get-go. 

This fascination suggests that every ABC effort requires court action and judicial approvals, from the beginning and throughout the assignment, to assure that everything about the ABC and its administration is on the up-and-up.

Startling and Puzzling

This fascination is both startling and puzzling.  Here are some reasons why.

While the Judge-made doctrine of equitable mootness continues to beguile and often stymie parties-in-interest seeking to appeal an order confirming a chapter 11 plan (as well as other orders which are on appeal prior to confirmation of a plan), appellants in the Fifth Circuit can continue to rest assured that the doctrine will be applied only as a “scalpel rather than an axe.” That is because in the Fifth Circuit, the doctrine—which can be described as a form of appellate abstention—is applied only on a claim-by-claim, instead of appeal-by-appeal basis.

Chief Justice Hammerschlag, sitting in the New South Wales Supreme Court (the Court), has delivered a judgement of importance to secured creditor and insolvency practitioners alike in Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Atlas CTL Pty Ltd (Recs and Mngrs Apptd) (In liq) [2022] NSWSC 573 (Atlas).

In an important decision to private credit lenders, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a make-whole premium for an unsecured creditor tied to future interest payments is the “functional equivalent of unmatured interest” and not recoverable under Section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Ultra Petroleum Corp. v. Ad Hoc Committee of OpCo Unsecured Creditors (In re Ultra Petroleum Corp.), No. 21-20008 (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (“Ultra”). Ordinarily, the story ends here.

After much anticipation, the UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 - and has authoritatively set the baseline for how directors’ duties evolve as regards shareholders and creditors’ interests when a company is in the zone of insolvency.

Background

“Controlling the controllables” should be the main focus of contractors.

When I am struggling to focus on tasks, my “go-to aid’’ is to sit and write down things I can control. Invariably, as a result of this process, I end up identifying things that I cannot control. It is always occupying my thinking.

I then proceed to unload these very unhelpful intruders from my thinking and wham, away I go. This time focused on important things I have control of.

In an important decision for U.S. companies with UK subsidiaries, the UK Supreme Court recently handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A., the first case in which the UK's highest court considered the duties of directors of UK companies to company creditors.

The Ruling