This week’s TGIF examines the decision in Re Farley Bay (in liq) [2022] VSC 604, where an insolvency proceeding was successfully transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court despite the Supreme Court of Victoria considering the Applicant’s ultimate proprietary claims to be ‘weak’.

Key takeaways

The Restructuring Directive of 20 June 2019 harmonises insolvency legislation for the first time at the European level.

An important part of this Directive concerns preventive restructuring frameworks, which aim to limit the unnecessary liquidation of viable companies.

In Belgium, this will mainly impact judicial reorganisation, and more specifically judicial reorganisation by means of collective agreement.

La directive du 20 juin 2019 relative aux restructurations harmonise pour la première fois la législation sur l'insolvabilité au niveau européen.

Une partie importante de cette directive concerne les cadres de restructuration préventive, qui visent à limiter la liquidation inutile d'entreprises viables.

En Belgique, cela aura principalement un impact sur la réorganisation judiciaire, et plus particulièrement sur la réorganisation judiciaire par accord collectif.

This is an important update in the Australian corporate and insolvency law context because, in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court (being the UK’s highest court) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by directors to creditors in certain circumstances (creditor duty). Under the common law and equity (together, general law), there is a gateway to applicability of the creditor duty in Australia.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered its (second) opinion in the case of In re Ultra Petroleum Corporation, Case No. 21-20008, on October 14, 2022, potentially widening a circuit split on the issue of “make-whole” payments. With the circuit split potentially growing, this issue could be ripe for a grant of certiorari.

The recent case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] has clarified what is a ‘relevant debt’ of a company which uses a ‘prohibited name’ and for which a director or person who manages that company can be personally liable for. 

Who will be interested in this article?

Executive Summary

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA on 5 October 2022. This important case addresses the duties of directors to consider the interests of creditors as a company approaches insolvency.

While the judgment will be welcomed by many as providing some useful guidance on a number of issues, there still remain some key areas of uncertainty which, as we consider in further detail below, will present clear challenges for directors seeking to navigate their way through a company’s financial difficulties.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (“SC”) has recently handed down a decision in the case of BTI v Sequana, dealing with the powers and duties of company directors. The appeal was expected to be of considerable importance.

This alert is especially relevant to companies, and directors of companies, in financial distress, as well as creditors and insolvency practitioners.

Key Takeaways

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Ors [2022] UKSC 25. This judgment arose from an appeal brought by BTI 2014 LLC against a decision of the English Court of Appeal in 2019.