事業再生・債権管理Newsletter 2022年10月号 2 本ニュースレターの発行元は弁護士法人大江橋法律事務所です。弁護士法人大江橋法律事務所は、1981年に設立された日本の総合法律事務所です。東京、大阪、名古屋、海外は上海にオフィスを構えており、主に企業法務 を中心とした法的サービスを提供しております。本ニュースレターの内容は、一般的な情報提供に止まるものであり、個別具体的なケースに関する法的アドバイスを想定したものではありません。本ニュースレターの内容につきま しては、一切の責任を負わないものとさせて頂きます。法律・裁判例に関する情報及びその対応等については本ニュースレターのみに依拠されるべきでなく、必要に応じて別途弁護士のアドバイスをお受け頂ければと存じます。 販売先破産時の納入商品の取り戻しについて ～令和3年8月18日徳島地裁判決～ 第１ はじめに ビジネスにおいて商品を販売する上で、販売先が倒産してし まうリスクは常にあります。商品を納入したものの、販売先から 突然、弁護士名義で「事業継続が困難となったので、破産しま す。」というような書面（受任通知）が送られて来た経験を持つ 方もおられるのではないでしょうか。 もしそのような書面が来る直前に商品を納入していれば、納 入業者の担当者としてはなんとか当該商品を取り戻したいと 考えると思います。

In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

Introduction

Many years ago, back when mediation is a rarity in bankruptcy disputes, I asked an old-timer this question:

Why is the bankruptcy system a lagging adopter of mediation?”

A Surprising Answer

The old-timer gave this surprising answer:

“At the time of the Bankruptcy Code’s enactment, the bankruptcy judge was viewed as a mediator in the judge’s own court.”

The old-timer added this.  When the Bankruptcy Code was enacted:

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.

At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.  

Background

The Supreme Court’s decision in BTI v Sequana & Others represents the most significant ruling on the duties of directors of distressed companies of the past 30 years. It is the first occasion on which the Supreme Court has addressed whether company directors owe a duty to consider or act in accordance with the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, insolvency (the creditor duty). The judgment is lengthy, but can be boiled down to the following key points.

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) delivered a landmark judgment regarding directors’ duties in an insolvency context. In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25, the UKSC considered the circumstances in which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors when exercising duties owed to the company and what obligations that imposes on directors.

The Insolvency and Companies Court has recognised Chapter 11 Proceedings in the US in respect of the manufacturer of controversial surgical mesh products which have generated a significant number of claims worldwide. The British Claimants have had their claims stayed as a result of this recognition.

Re Astora Women’s Health LLC [2022] EWHC 2412 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.