The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in the Sequana case (handed down on 5 October 2022)^[1] is the first time that the UK’s highest court has been asked to consider the proposition that directors are, in certain circumstances, under a duty in respect of creditors’ interests as distinct from shareholders’ interests.

The key takeaway points from this ‘momentous decision for company law’ (the words of Lady Arden who gave one of the leading judgments) are:

The government’s monthly insolvency statistics for August 2022 present a concerning trend for companies hoping to weather the storm amid the current economic crisis. Largely driven by creditors’ voluntary liquidations, company insolvencies were 43% higher than the same period last year and 42% higher than in 2019 (pre-pandemic).

David Wallace and Jack Isaacs, Latham & Watkins LLP

This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.

Introduction

UK Supreme Court gives important judgment on directors’ “creditor duty”

The UK Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors [2022] UKSC 25[1] has given an important judgment clarifying the nature of the so-called “creditor duty.”  The “creditor duty” is an aspect of the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the interests of their company which requires the directors to take into account the interests of creditors in an insolvency, or borderline insolvency, context.

Welcome to the October 2022 edition of the HFW Commodities bulletin.

In this extended edition, a number of our partners from across the globe have taken time to reflect on the profound impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the commodities sector. It includes contributions from our offices in Australia, Geneva, London and Singapore, with articles on energy and food security, sanctions, insolvency, regulation, the energy transition and force majeure.

On the back page, you will find details of the latest news and where you can meet the team next.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the resolution professional or the interim resolution professional (collectively referred as RP) is vested with the responsibility of running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern and conducting the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The RP must also ensure that CIRP is conducted in a time-bound manner and the value of the assets of the corporate debtor is maximised during the process.

On 5 October 2022, judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA (Sequana) and others. The judgment is significant to company directors, insolvency practitioners and litigators as it clarifies how directors should comply with their duties to creditors in the context of insolvency.

Keeping on top of the latest financial services regulatory and compliance trends?

Investing time in your professional development within a rapidly changing financial services industry is challenging. To meet that challenge, the Australian Regulators Weekly Wrapis designed to keep you at the forefront of your practice by quickly setting out the top five developments from the past week, analysis and practical considerations for the future.

This week’s TGIF considers Campbell J’s recent decision in Blackcitrus Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Parramatta Rugby Club Limited [2022] NSWSC 1329, refusing to order security for costs and determining whether to strike out defences based on alleged past breaches of NRL salary cap rules.

Key takeaways

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