Court confirms dividends can be transactions at an undervalue

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a dividend paid by a company to its shareholders can constitute a transaction at an undervalue under insolvency law.

What happened?

A real, as opposed to remote, risk of insolvency is not necessarily enough for the duties of a board of directors to switch from being owed to its shareholders to being owed to its creditors.

Introduction

In light of the decisions made in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2019] EWCA Civ 112 (the Sequana case), consideration may need to be given to the interests of creditors when declaring a dividend. The Court of Appeal in the Sequana case concluded that the payment of an otherwise lawful dividend constituted a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Background to the Sequana Case

A copy of the judgment can be found here.

Introduction 

1. The bank successfully appealed an order refusing to give or reserve judgment after hearing full submissions in the bank’s petition and instead listing the petition for hearing at the same time as two later-in-time petitions to bankrupt the debtor.

The Background

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Following the decision in Wagner v White, Connor Pierce, solicitor at Ashfords LLP, looks at how the courts have been dealing with bankruptcy petitions which lenders have presented against guarantors when the principal borrower fails to repay the loan. Pierce also considers the ways in which guarantors have tried to have the lender’s statutory demand set aside. Wagner v White [2018] EWHC 2882 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 16 (Nov)

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Ors [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Others [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the '1986 Act').

The first instance decision:

If your company has gone into liquidation and you are in the process of setting up a new business, you may want to use the same or a similar company name. However, if you either act as director or are involved in the management of the new company with the same or similar name as the insolvent company, you run the risk of both civil and criminal liability if you don’t comply with the restrictions under the Insolvency Act 1986.

No. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original finding, namely that no duty to consider AWA’s creditors had arisen. Whilst AWA’s directors had made provision for the contingent liabilities in question, this did not itself mean AWA was insolvent or close to insolvency. In fact, it was not, and so the duty to consider AWA’s creditors never arose.

Practical implications

Although this decision simply confirms the High Court’s original decision, it emphasises the care and vigilance with which directors of a company need to act when paying dividends.

A company has outstanding debts and it seems they are struggling financially. What can you do to try and get your debts settled? Is applying to have the company wound up the answer? Here, we take a look at what you will need to consider before a decision is made and we take a look at the key steps in the process.

What is winding up?

Winding up is also known as compulsory liquidation. It is action taken by creditors of the company which (if successful) will result in the company ceasing to trade and being closed down.

Trustees should be careful when disclaiming assets after bankruptcy, after a High Court ruling blocked an application on a property that turned a significant profit when sold.

The case in question is Sleight v The Crown Estate Commissioners [2018] EWHC 3489 (ch).

The facts 

The Applicant in Sleight was the trustee in bankruptcy (the Applicant). The Respondents were The Crown Estate Commissioners (the Respondents).