簡介

英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決，其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任，是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發，還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。

背景

本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司（「該公司」）的董事。於2009年5月，他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東（「第一答辯人」）派發1.35億歐元的股息（「該股息」），以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時，其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而，該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債，導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。

Online claims-trading platform Xclaim Inc. came under scrutiny this past summer in the Madison Square Boys & Girls Club Inc. bankruptcy case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Since at least 2019, Xclaim has executed agreements with at least five notice and claims agent firms to synchronize their proofs of claim registers with Xclaim’s website where such claims are posted for sale.

Having experienced first-hand HMRC’s attempts to combat serious tax losses, one of the features of tax litigation over the last 15 years has been the prevalence of so-called ‘Kittel’ cases. These are cases in which HMRC seeks to deny repayments of VAT to companies buying goods in circumstances where HMRC has identified a fraud further up the supply chain, often many companies distant. They can involve significant amounts of VAT and form a substantial pillar of HMRC’s compliance strategy.

It is five years since the tragic Grenfell disaster but defective cladding/dangerous living conditions and fire safety are still very much hot news. But, you may be asking, why is this relevant to insolvency practitioners?

1.1 Are there international treaties and/or cross-border instruments applicable?

In its decision in Shailesh Verma, Resolution Professional of Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a 3 (three)member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that continuation of electricity supply to a corporate debtor during the subsistence of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is subject to payment for such supply.

Brief Facts

The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) came into force on 1 August 2016 and replaced the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”).

The previous 1930 Act had enabled a third party to bring a claim directly against an insurer where the insured had become insolvent, however a claimant had to (i) restore a dissolved company to the register of companies and obtain the leave of the court to allow proceedings to be commenced; (ii) obtain judgment against the insured; and (iii) commence separate proceedings against the insurer.

The Supreme Court decision in BTI v Sequana provided the first opportunity for the UK Supreme Court to address the duty of company directors to consider the interests of a company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent or when it approaches or is at real risk of insolvency. Natalie Osafo and Francesca Bugg examine the decision and its implications for company directors.

Four years after New York grocery chain Tops’ exit from Chapter 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain ruled that the Tops’ Chapter 11 trustee may proceed with litigation against certain private equity investors. The trustee alleged that the investors drove the company into bankruptcy by paying themselves more than $375 million in dividends while neglecting to address Tops’ unfunded pension liabilities.

The Supreme Court of Israel recently clarified the distinction between fixed and floating charges under Israeli law. While the decision of the Supreme Court did not specifically address charges on intellectual property, the tests set forth by the Supreme Court will likely affect the characterization of charges on such intangible assets under Israeli law. This decision takes on additional importance in the current economic climate, which may see more IP-rich companies in insolvency situations or looking to use their intellectual property assets to secure financing.