The Supreme Court has been given its first opportunity to “address the existence, scope and engagement of an alleged duty of company directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency”. The corporate restructuring and insolvency community has been waiting for this “momentous” judgment with anticipation for the last 17 months.
The facts of the case:
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the resolution professional or the interim resolution professional (collectively referred as RP) is vested with the responsibility of running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern and conducting the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The RP must also ensure that CIRP is conducted in a time-bound manner and the value of the assets of the corporate debtor is maximised during the process.
On 5 October 2022, judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA (Sequana) and others. The judgment is significant to company directors, insolvency practitioners and litigators as it clarifies how directors should comply with their duties to creditors in the context of insolvency.
The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25.
Basic facts
On 5 October 2022 the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down its “momentous” decision in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others1. The case addresses issues of ‘‘considerable practical importance to the management of companies’’, in particular directors’ duties during insolvency or the onset of insolvency.
On 4 and 5 May 2021, the Supreme Court heard an appeal in BTI 2104 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 and this week it gave its judgment. The length of the time taken to issue the judgment reflects both the complexity of the issues involved and the importance of the questions raised for company law in the UK.
Kate Colman, Sarah Levin and Ryan Al-Hakim, Milbank LLP
This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.
Introduction
In the recent decision of Somesh Choudhary v. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Ors., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi has held that claims arising from the grant of an exclusive right and license to use intellectual property rights falls within the definition of “operational debt” under Section 5(21) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
Background Facts
The long awaited Sequana Supreme Court judgment[1] has provided some welcome clarity around the duties of the directors of a company in the "twilight zone" – i.e. where the company is facing financial difficulties.
A recent Supreme Court decision serves as a reminder for directors to take specialist legal advice at an early stage to avoid potential liability
Managing a company’s business and making strategic and operational decisions is increasingly the subject of considerable internal and external pressures.