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.

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.

The economic landscape continues to remain challenging, or, in some cases, looks to be getting worse, thereby impacting trading conditions across borders. It is likely that in most jurisdictions, trading conditions will worsen before they stabilise and, ultimately, improve.

In an important decision for U.S. companies with UK subsidiaries, the UK Supreme Court recently handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A., the first case in which the UK's highest court considered the duties of directors of UK companies to company creditors.

The Ruling

After much anticipation, the UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 - and has authoritatively set the baseline for how directors’ duties evolve as regards shareholders and creditors’ interests when a company is in the zone of insolvency.

Background

Chief Justice Hammerschlag, sitting in the New South Wales Supreme Court (the Court), has delivered a judgement of importance to secured creditor and insolvency practitioners alike in Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Atlas CTL Pty Ltd (Recs and Mngrs Apptd) (In liq) [2022] NSWSC 573 (Atlas).

In a recent decision handed down in Gold Valley Iron Pty Ltd (in liq) v OPS Screening & Crushing Equipment Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 134, Liquidators succeeded in establishing an ‘equipment lease with an option to purchase’ clause as being a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 which needed to be registered by the owner.

Key takeaways

Due to the recent challenging economic environment, the law’s treatment of creditors’ interests in a restructuring or insolvency has been a hot topic. From a creditor’s perspective, its objective will be straightforward: to maximize its recovery as soon as possible when its interests are put at risk by financial challenges facing the debtor. From a shareholder’s perspective, its agenda will generally be quite different: to achieve certainty and stability through a debt restructuring so that the company can stay afloat and carry on business without the risk of a winding up order.

In the previous quarter, the Supreme Court pronounced important judgements on the admission of insolvency applications filed by financial creditors and the validity of resolution plans not providing for payment of statutory dues to government authorities. In arbitration law, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of the court’s power to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and assess the arbitrability of a dispute in an application filed for appointment of the arbitrator.

The Court’s decision in Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 642 is important because, for the first time in Australia, a Court has granted a creditor leave to bring a derivative action in the name of a company in liquidation against its liquidators. This case opens another significant gateway for creditors to seek redress for their losses.