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.

This article is the China Chapter of Sporting Succession in Football, a publication by Sports and Policy Centre, print copy available at: http://www.sportslawandpolicycentre.com/

A. Applicable Regulation of the Member Association

Background

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests duty").

Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

Following a long wait of 18 months, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana is unanimously dismissed.

The key question that many of us have been waiting for the answer to is: Does the creditor duty set out in s172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 exist and if so, when is it engaged?

It is axiomatic – at least as a prima facie proposition – that insolvency is only concerned about assets which belong to the insolvent when the insolvency commences (or, as it is often said when a concursus creditorum is established on the commencement of insolvency). South African insolvency law respects property rights which have accrued under our law prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings, including security interests such as mortgages, liens and cessions.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Carillion Canada Inc. clarifies how the principles in Montréal (City) v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc. (Montréal) should be applied to contingent obligations that are only quantified after the debtor company files for creditor protection.