A U.S. bankruptcy court recently denied chapter 15 recognition to a case in the Isle of Man (IOM). The court ruled that the foreign case was neither a foreign main proceeding nor a foreign non-main proceeding. Although the court found that the IOM proceeding was a “foreign proceeding,” it also held that the debtor’s center of main interests wasn’t in the IOM and the debtor didn't have an establishment there. In re Shimmin, No.

Objective

In the context of an insolvent or near insolvent company, a receiver will be appointed, in the ordinary course, by a secured creditor seeking to have the assets which are the subject of its security realised to enable the payment of its claim. The appointment, most often, will be made under the agreement by which the security is granted or might be made under one of the property law statutes which authorise the appointment of a receiver by the court for the purpose of enforcing a security.

The thing that strikes you the most about Paul, Weiss is the depth of the practice. They just have a large number of senior partners, all of whom are of an outstanding quality.

- Chambers USA, Band 1 for Bankruptcy/Restructuring (Nationwide and NYC) and "Bankruptcy Law Firm of the Year" in 2019

Oceanfill Ltd v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd and Cannons Group Ltd. [2022] EWHC 2178 (Ch)

A recent decision of the High Court has given helpful clarity on the effects of the UK's restructuring plan procedure on lease agreements and the implications for lease guarantors.

The Virgin Active plan

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.

The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment, which as Lord Reed noted, considered issues that go to the heart of our understanding of company law and are of considerable practical importance to the management of companies.

Background to the Appeal

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: The actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has, in its judgment dated September 19, 2022, in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan [Civil Appeal No. 563 of 2020], held that in deciding cases pertaining to insider trading, the actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential.

Under Irish and UK law, company directors owe fiduciary duties to act in good faith in the interests of the company. The company's interests in this context usually means the collective best interests of the members. However, UK and Irish authorities have developed directors' common law duties, such that in cases of insolvency, directors have a duty to consider the interests of the company's creditors.