Key takeaways

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others,¹ the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and triggers of the obligation on directors to have regard to the interests of creditors when a company becomes insolvent or is bordering on insolvency (the Creditor Duty).

This decision addresses important issues for directors, stakeholders, and advisors of UK companies.

Background

Statutory demands can be issued by a creditor to a debtor company to demand payment of a debt due and owing. Failure to respond to the demand may result in the debtor company facing a winding-up application based on the company’s presumed insolvency.

However, there are several avenues available to a debtor company to apply for a court order setting aside a demand. The most common grounds are found in section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), where a company can claim:

If a debtor company receives a statutory demand, it has 21 days to file an application (along with a supporting affidavit) with the Court to set aside that statutory demand. The Court may set aside this statutory demand if:

Liquidation is the process of winding up a company’s financial affairs. The assets of the company are collected and realised, the resulting funds are applied to discharging the company’s liabilities and debts, and any residual funds are redistributed to the company’s members. Liquidation is the only way to fully wind up the affairs of a company and end the existence of the company.

The chief purposes of liquidation are threefold:

There are many cases about the appointment of administrators, not so many about terminating their appointment. Re Central Properties Holdings Ltd (In Administration) [2023] EWHC 829 (Ch) is one.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a creditor or trustee seeking to recover a subsequent transfer under Section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code need not obtain a judgment of avoidance against the subsequent transferee before proceeding with the recovery action.

The Second Circuit recently held that a non-party to an assumed executory contract is not entitled to a cure payment (although it may be so entitled if is a third-party beneficiary of the contract). The result would have seemed obvious to bankruptcy practitioners. So, what in the world made the party pursuing payment take this to the Second Circuit? Well, surprisingly, as the Second Circuit decision shows, the answer is not found in the plain text of the Bankruptcy Code. And while it was argued prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S.

The Honourable Justice Black of the NSW Supreme Court has ruled on an application pursuant to s90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) involving the complex interplay between s556 and s561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

As of 17 April 2023 new creditors winding up petitions can be presented in accordance with the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules (NI) 2023. This means that the restrictions faced by creditors in filing winding up petitions will be lifted, and ultimately more companies will be open to pursual.

There are often difficult issues encountered when the worlds of bankruptcy and probate collide. This case is a good example.

The case concerns section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("s283A") which provides that a bankruptcy trustee must deal with a bankrupt's interest in their home within three years, otherwise the property re-vests in the bankrupt on expiry of this period. It is commonly known at the "use it or lose it" provision.