We are again reminded that the clear terms of a written contract—even if they might yield a surprising result—will govern. For those who don’t bother to read the “clickwrap” terms and conditions when, for example, signing up for the new online game or entrusting millions in crypto currency, those controlling terms may surprise. Parties in any transaction cannot just assume that the “boilerplate”—whether a make-whole in a note, a subordination provision in a credit agreement, or terms and conditions in a customer agreement—will be acceptable.

On 28 October 2022, the High Court handed down judgment in the case of Alma Property Management Ltd v Crompton And Another [2022] EWHC 2671 (Ch).

In this case, the (freeholder) Claimant sought an order for specific performance of the (leaseholder) Defendants' repairing obligations under a lease of the common parts of a block of flats called North Tower in Manchester.

Jabaluka Pty Ltd (Jabaluka) was the Trustee of the Morgan Unit Trust, which operated an IGA Supermarket (the Supermarket) from 22 September 2010 to 13 March 2020. This case concerned an application by the Liquidator of Jabaluka (the Liquidator) under s 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for an order that the Liquidator be appointed without security as receiver and manager of the assets and undertaking of the Morgan Unit Trust.

Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling last week in the Celsius Network bankruptcy case addressing whether customer deposits on a cryptocurrency exchange or platform are property of the debtor or property of the customer. The answer, not surprisingly, depends on the Terms of Use governing the account in question. In this case, the Court found that the terms clearly and unambiguously provided that ownership of cryptocurrency assets deposited into “Earn Accounts” resides with Celsius.

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Others, the United Kingdom Supreme Court considered a case on appeal which asked the Court to expand the common law duty of directors in a significant way. The Appellant sought to argue that common law director duties should require directors to have regard to the interests of creditors even in circumstances where their company is solvent.

Background

はじめに

最近、イギリス（United Kingdom、以下同じ）最高裁判所のある判決では、破産した会社または破産に近い会社の取締役が債権者の利益を考慮に入れる義務が明確になりました。BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25はイギリスの会社法に関連していますが、英連邦全体、特にオフショア法域での破産における取締役義務についての解釈などに、広範囲にわたる影響を及ぼします。

Sequana

Cryptocurrency in Celsius’ Earn Accounts belongs to the bankruptcy estate, and not to the depositors who placed it there, according to a January 4 memorandum opinion from Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

簡介

在最近英国最高法院的一项判决中，资不抵债或接近资不抵债的公司的董事有责任考虑债权人的利益。虽然 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 涉及英国公司法，但它将对理解英联邦地区清盘情况下的董事职责产生深远影响，尤其是在离岸司法管辖区。

Sequana

普通法和 2006 年《公司法》均规定公司董事有义务以诚信行事，以促进公司的成功。传统观点认为，公司利益等同于公司股东的利益。近几十年来，法律开始承认，当公司濒临破产或资不抵债时，公司债权人的利益可能会受到公司管理层的影响。因此，法律开始要求董事在破产情况下履行对公司的信托义务时考虑债权人的利益。这条被称为 West Mercia 规则（源自 West Mercia Safetywear Ltd (in liq) v Dodd [1988] BCLC 250）的规则从未在案例中得到一致解释，而法院使用的语言经常混淆规则的性质及其产生的确切情况。

Introduction

In a recent decision, the United Kingdom Supreme Court clarified the duty of directors of insolvent or near insolvent companies to consider the interests of creditors. While BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 relates to company law in the United Kingdom, it will have far reaching implications on the understanding of directors' duties relating to insolvency across the commonwealth and, in particular, offshore jurisdictions.

Sequana

As the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands reopens for 2023, it is a good time to reflect on what transpired in 2022. A review of the filings made in the Grand Court throughout 2022 shows a very significant number of cases concerning large-scale cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings, as well as various complex commercial disputes.

Statistics from the Grand Court