Kate Colman, Sarah Levin and Ryan Al-Hakim, Milbank LLP

This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.

Introduction

In the recent decision of Somesh Choudhary v. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Ors., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi has held that claims arising from the grant of an exclusive right and license to use intellectual property rights falls within the definition of “operational debt” under Section 5(21) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Background Facts

Howard Morris and Sonya Van de Graaff, Morrison & Foerster LLP and Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.

Scope of the chapter

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA was handed down on 5 October 2022.

The Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which company directors must exercise their duties under s.172 Companies Act 2006 (CA06) with regard to the interests of the creditors and affirmed the position reached by the Court of Appeal.

Comment

Former One Nation senator, current Great Australian Party Leader and self-styled ‘senator in exile’ Rod Culleton has vowed to fight charges that he knowingly provided false or misleading information to a Commonwealth entity.

The basis of the allegations

The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.

The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Others [2022] UKSC 25

In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise hen a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.

In this Article, José-Antonio Maurellet SC (a member of DVC and an Associate Member of 3 Verulam Buildings) and Michael Lok discuss the landmark decision just handed down by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others 

Where a company's liquidation is necessary, deciding who or where is best placed to administer an orderly wind down for the benefit of creditors can be difficult: the shortfall of assets in an insolvency will highlight jurisdictional differences in approach as to questions of priority, frequently territorial rather than universalist.

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 (Supreme Court - BTI v Sequana) concerning the fiduciary duty of directors to act in good faith in the interests of the company.