Background

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests duty").

Since 1 October 2022, the Singapore International Commercial Court now has jurisdiction to hear cross-border restructuring and insolvency matters. In addition, foreign lawyers may be appointed to make submissions in restructuring and insolvency proceedings in the SICC. Lawyers may even enter into conditional fee agreements with their clients for selected proceedings provided that certain safeguards are met.

The Supreme Court’s decision in BTI v Sequana & Others represents the most significant ruling on the duties of directors of distressed companies of the past 30 years.

This Supreme Court decision considers the balancing exercise which directors are required to carry out between the respective interests of creditors and shareholders when a company is in financial distress.

This note summarises the key points from the ruling and the practical effect of this decision.

Directors who oppose company windings up with little more than a hope that a restructuring proposal may bear fruit may have to weigh their actions carefully going forward, following a recent decision by the Hong Kong Companies Court.

A Hong Kong court has severely criticised the provisional liquidators (PLs) appointed by the court in the company’s place of incorporation in the Cayman Islands, for trying to interfere with the rights of creditors in Hong Kong and to bypass the statutory scheme of winding-up in Hong Kong. In GTI Holdings Limited [2022] HKCFI 2598, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan said it was a matter of concern to see that solicitors and counsel engaged by the PLs in Hong Kong "did not bring home to the provisional liquidators their duties owed to the creditors and to this court".

In Stream TV Networks, Inc. v. SeeCubic, Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s finding that the board of Stream TV Networks, Inc. (Stream) could sell all of Stream’s assets without a stockholder vote due to Stream’s insolvency. The Delaware Supreme Court found that the sale agreement – in essence, a privately structured foreclosure transaction – constituted an “asset transfer” under Stream’s charter, triggering a class vote provision that required the approval of Stream’s Class B stockholders.

60 second speed read:

Introduction

It is common for construction project owners to finance projects through multiple mortgages, especially in times of rising construction costs. However, when an insolvency situation arises, holdback priority claims from contractors and subcontractors are particularly complex when there are multiple building mortgages involved. The Ontario Superior Court (Commercial List) provided new clarity in this regard in its April 29, 2022 decision in BCIMC Construction Fund Corp. et al.

This week’s TGIF examines Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd v Davis Investment Group Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1171 where a court considered an application for non-party costs orders against a litigation funder and the liquidator of an insolvent defendant.

Key takeaways