Over the past decade, or so, we have seen situations in Chapter 11 cases where groups of creditors contracted with debtors for the exclusive right to provide new money on extremely favorable terms, with significant "backstop" fees paid in connection therewith, and other creditors in the same class were excluded from participating in such investments. E.g., Peabody Coal, CHC Helicopter, Pacific Drilling, Momentive and most recently, LATAM Airlines and TPC Group.

In its Siegel v. Fitzgerald opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court declares that disparate quarterly fee amounts between U.S. Trustee and Bankruptcy Administrator districts are unconstitutional, under the uniformity requirement of the U.S. Constitution’s bankruptcy clause.

The most recent fallout from that opinion is the following docket entry by the U.S. Supreme Court in a different case with the same issues:

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom released its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA. This marks the first occasion on which the nature, scope and content of directors' duties to creditors when a company is nearing insolvency (the "Creditor Duty") has been considered by the Supreme Court.

The saga of the first Ultra Petroleum Corp. chapter 11 cases appears to have finally come to an end. Numerous articles have been written on the tortured history of whether certain creditors of Ultra Petroleum are entitled to payment of their contractually mandated Make-Whole Amount and default rate of interest.

Since 1988, the ‘rule in West Mercia’ – so named after the West Mercia Safetywear v Dodd Court of Appeal case – has been the leading authority for when directors of financially stressed companies are subject to the so-called ‘creditor duty’, namely the duty to consider the interests of the company’s creditors.

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.

On 5 October 2022 a judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA (Sequana) and others.This judgment relates to an insolvency dispute between BTI, the assignee of AWA’s claims, and Sequana. Principally, it concerns which entity should make the payment for an outstanding liability incurred by AWA, arising out of the National Cash Register Company’s (NCR) pollution of the Fox River in Wisconsin. Through a series of restructurings, AWA became liable to indemnify British American Tobacco (BAT) for these costs.

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?

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.

This Supreme Court decision considers the balancing exercise which directors are required to carry out between the respective interests of creditors and shareholders when a company is in financial distress.

This note summarises the key points from the ruling and the practical effect of this decision.

Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (June 6, 2022)