Since 1988, the ‘rule in West Mercia’ – so named after the West Mercia Safetywear v Dodd Court of Appeal case – has been the leading authority for when directors of financially stressed companies are subject to the so-called ‘creditor duty’, namely the duty to consider the interests of the company’s creditors.

In both jurisdictions the general consensus was that where a company is insolvent, the fiduciary duty of its directors to act in the interest of the company (Irish law), or in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company in the interests of its members as a whole (English law), altered such that directors were required to treat creditors' interests in priority to shareholders' interests. Directors must consider the interests of creditors as a whole, and not just the interests of any individual creditor or class of creditors.

On 27 July 2022, the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 380/2022) (the Regulations) amended the Irish Companies Act 2014 (the Act) by transposing certain requirements of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 (the Directive) not already provided for in Irish law.

This has resulted in a number of modifications to the examinership regime and, for the first time, a codification of directors' duties when companies are in the `zone of insolvency'.

The changes to the Examinership regime include:

Key takeaways for directors

A significant decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was released last week, BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others, confirming the existence of a duty owed to the company by its directors to consider the interests of the company's creditors when the company becomes insolvent or approaches insolvency.

As expressed by the Supreme Court, the so-called "creditor duty" reflects a sliding scale:

Lately, the global economic market has been tumultuousMajor changes such as inflation and interest rate hikes may cause individuals or legal entities to fall into the abyss of insolvency. According to the Consumer Debt Clearance Statute and the Bankruptcy Act, if a debtor is unable to repay his/her debts, he/she may clear his/her debts according to the rehabilitation or liquidation process set out by the Consumer Debt ClearanceStatute, or file an application for bankruptcy in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Both are procedures to help debtors clear their debts.

In this alert, we review an important UK Supreme Court decision, which confirms that the fiduciary duties of directors to act in good faith in the interests of the company should, where insolvency[1] is imminent or insolvent liquidation or administration is probable, be interpreted as including the interests of its creditors.

The Privy Council has handed down judgment in two appeals (ETJL v Halabi; ITGL v Fort Trustees [2022] UKPC 36) concerning the nature and scope of the right of a trustee to recover from or be indemnified out of trust assets in respect of liabilities and other expenditure properly incurred by the trustee. A seven-member Board was convened because the Privy Council was asked to reconsider part of its decision in Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd v Glenalla Properties Ltd [2019] AC 271.

What steps should directors take when dealing with challenges to their company's solvency? We provide a high-level guide to the legal framework, looking at directors' general duties in an insolvency context and how the safe harbour defence to insolvent trading applies.

What suggests a company may be financially distressed? What are directors' legal obligations? At what point should they seek advice?

Our guide explains the law, to help directors understand what they need to do.

Directors' general duties in an insolvency context

New fees are soon to be introduced by The Insolvency Service in respect of the insolvency deposit required to commence a creditor’s bankruptcy petition and winding-up petition which will make it harder for many businesses to collect their debts.

The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.  

Background 

The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.