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)

Federal district courts, with the consent of the parties, are authorized by statute to refer "civil matter[s]" to magistrate judges for the purpose of conducting all proceedings and entering a judgment in the litigation. In the case of an appeal to a district court from a bankruptcy court, however, this statutory authority arguably conflicts with another statutory provision dictating that appeals from a bankruptcy court order or judgment be heard by a "district court" or a "bankruptcy appellate panel." This apparent conflict was recently addressed by the U.S.

In Short

The Situation: Bankruptcy courts have split on what rate of post-petition interest unimpaired creditors of a solvent debtor are entitled to receive. Bankruptcy courts have variously ruled that such creditors were entitled to the contractual rate of interest, interest at the federal judgment rate (about the rate on a one-year Treasury bill) as of the bankruptcy petition date, or an equitable rate. Another possibility is that no interest is payable at all.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently ruled in the Puerto Rico bankruptcy case that Fifth Amendment takings claims cannot be discharged or impaired by a bankruptcy plan. As a matter of first impression in that circuit, the Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and held that former property owners affected by prepetition takings must be paid in full.

In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., 41 F.4th 29 (1st Cir. 2022)