The amendments follow the recent high profile decision in The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors v EPA & Anor [2021] VSCA 294 (TASCO Judgment). Insolvency practitioners should be aware that the amendments are aimed at preventing liquidators from disclaiming liability for environmental clean-up costs.

TASCO Judgment

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment on the scope of directors’ duties in circumstances where a company is in financial difficulty, often referred to as the “twilight zone” i.e. the company is not yet insolvent but the company’s financial position is precarious. The hope was that the Supreme Court would provide certainty for those directors faced with difficult decisions in such circumstances, however, it is arguable whether the judgment has gone far enough to provide precise guidance.

Summary

引言

英国终审法院最近就 BTI 2014 LLC 诉 Sequana SA 及其他 [2022 UKSC 25] 一案（“Sequana 案”）颁布一份万众期待的判决。Sequana 案的法理将于开曼群岛以至其他普通法司法管辖权区成为极具说服力的法律根据。

Sequana 案是一项有用的判决，原因如下：

• 该案不但确认董事对股东负有受信责任而须真诚以公司最佳利益行事的传统观点，同时指出董事于公司无力偿债或濒临无力偿债或可能进行无力偿债清盘或管理时，须考虑债权人利益或以其行事（“债权人利益责任”）。
• Sequana 为英国终审法院审理的首宗案件裁定董事于哪些情况下必须考虑公司债权人利益，不论债权人利益责任可否于公司无力偿债前触发，以及股东可否认可对债权人利益责任的潜在违反。

背景

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.

近來全球經濟市場瞬息萬變，通貨膨脹、利息調升等重大變動，可能造成個人或法人步入不能清償債務的萬丈深淵。按消費者債務清理條例、破產法之規定，債務人若有不能清償債務之情形時，得依消費者債務清理條例聲請更生、清算，或依破產法聲請破產，二者都是協助債務人清理債務之程序，但從司法案件統計上，准駁情形卻有相當大的差異。

依司法院民國110年統計年報有關「地方法院消債聲請事件終結情形」之統計數字，自101年起至110年止聲請更生事件總計為33,997件，裁准更生之案件總計為24,699件（裁准比率為72.7％）；聲請清算事件總計為9,995件，裁定開始清算之案件總計為7,984件（裁准比率為79.9％）。

然而，有關「地方法院民事破產事件終結情形」同期間之統計數字，聲請破產事件總計僅有2,013件，而宣告破產之案件更只有287件（裁准比率為14.3％）。二者同為清理債務之程序，同樣期待債務人能夠透過債務清理程序重獲新生，何以破產事件不論是案件數量或裁准比率，均大幅低於更生或清算事件？

這些聲請破產之個人或法人，在破產程序中，究竟是因為什麼原因而被法院駁回聲請？或許可以從法院駁回破產聲請的理由，探知我國破產程序何以難如登天。

In previous alerts in this series, we have discussed how transformative DAOs can be for corporate formation and tax status. We have discussed how determining a DAO’s classification—whether a DAO is a legal entity and, if so, what type—is vital before any legal proceeding.

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.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case in which the Federal Court of Australia upheld a liquidator’s decision to reject a proof of debt for damages relating to a failed sale of commercial property. 

Key takeaways