In brief

Jersey law ruling will have far reaching ramifications for trust administration in common law jurisdictions

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

As the tile suggests the state of recognition and assistance jurisprudence & practice in Hong Kong is less than clear. This follows the recent (mostly) conflicting 1st instance decisions of Up Energy and Global Brands. Here are my views about (i) what I believe is settled; (ii) the points of judicial difference; and (iii) what remains unclear.

Settled

This week’s TGIF examines the decision in Re Farley Bay (in liq) [2022] VSC 604, where an insolvency proceeding was successfully transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court despite the Supreme Court of Victoria considering the Applicant’s ultimate proprietary claims to be ‘weak’.

Key takeaways

The Restructuring Directive of 20 June 2019 harmonises insolvency legislation for the first time at the European level.

An important part of this Directive concerns preventive restructuring frameworks, which aim to limit the unnecessary liquidation of viable companies.

In Belgium, this will mainly impact judicial reorganisation, and more specifically judicial reorganisation by means of collective agreement.

This is an important update in the Australian corporate and insolvency law context because, in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court (being the UK’s highest court) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by directors to creditors in certain circumstances (creditor duty). Under the common law and equity (together, general law), there is a gateway to applicability of the creditor duty in Australia.

An extension to the Debt Warehousing Scheme has been announced by the Revenue Commissioners.

The Debt Warehousing Scheme (DWS) was introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide support to businesses that were experiencing liquidity and trading difficulties. It has permitted businesses to “warehouse” or defer payment of their tax debts for a specified period.

The recent case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] has clarified what is a ‘relevant debt’ of a company which uses a ‘prohibited name’ and for which a director or person who manages that company can be personally liable for. 

Who will be interested in this article?

Executive Summary