As a service to our clients, we have prepared this compendium of the Insolvency Act, 2003 together with related regulations and rules, incorporating all amendments to date.

This version of the compendium takes into account changes and updates to the legislation as set out in the recent revisions.

The Supreme Court, in a key judgment handed down on 5 October 2022 (BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25), has provided some important clarification around the scope of directors’ duties in the context of companies that are nearing insolvency.

Factual background

The High Court of England and Wales has recently provided welcome clarification around the nature of events of default under derivatives contracts governed by the ISDA Master Agreement, in particular in relation to whether an insolvency related event of default can be cured and so cease to be continuing. This brings to an end a long running debate around the extent to which, and for how long, a party can continue to rely on the condition precedent to payment contained in the ISDA framework documentation where the other party is subject to such an event of default.

Insolvency practitioners (IPs) often occupy quasi-judicial offices which, among other things, require them to, assess and adjudicate on competing claims, take coercive and enforcement actions and complete potentially contentious transactions. They must discharge their legal and equitable duties whilst maintaining objectivity and, whilst recognising and appropriately balancing the interests of a diverse range of stakeholders.

Introduction

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 ("Sequana Case") which concerns the question of the trigger point when directors must have regard to the interests of creditors ("Creditor Duty"). This case raised questions of considerable importance for Malaysian company law.

１ 東京地裁「倒産部」に（2022年4月

東京地裁では、2022年3月まで、長年にわたり、破産・民事 再生は民事20部（破産再生部）、会社２ ビジネス・コート（2022年10月）更生は民事8部（商事 部）によって事件処理がなされてきましたが、同年 4月より、会 社更生、特別清算及び外国倒産処理手続承認援助事件等 が民事8部から民事20部に移管され、民事20部の名称も「破 産再生部」から「倒産部」に変更¹ されました²。

民事再生と会社更生はともに再建型の倒産手続であり、手 続が類似しているところもあることから、会社更生が民事20部 に移管されたことに伴い、従前の会社更生の実務運用が変わ ることも考えられるものの、民事20部としては、当面は民事8部 の運用を承継しつつ、破産・再生事件の運用状況も踏まえ て、利用者が利用しやすい、公正・適正性を担保した円滑な 手続運用を継続的に検討していく³ 、とされていることから、当 面は運用が大きく変わることはないと思われます。

The Law on the Temporary Adaption of Restructuring and Insolvency Law Provisions to Mitigate the Consequences of the Crisis (SanInsKG) was published in the German Federal Gazette (Bundesanzeiger) today (8 November 2022) and will become effective in German law tomorrow (9 November 2022), following a very quick legislative process.

Purpose of the SanInsKG

SanInsKG is intended to address the difficulty of companies assessing their solvency in the current economic climate.

The Supreme Court recently considered the existence of the “creditor duty” and when this duty arises in the case of BTI v Sequana. The creditor duty is the duty for company directors to consider the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent or is at real risk of insolvency.

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