Key takeaways

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others,¹ the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and triggers of the obligation on directors to have regard to the interests of creditors when a company becomes insolvent or is bordering on insolvency (the Creditor Duty).

This decision addresses important issues for directors, stakeholders, and advisors of UK companies.

Background

In what was described as a “momentous decision for company law”, the Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and Others [2022] UKSC 25 (“Sequana”) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by company directors to consider the interests of its creditors when nearing insolvency.

It marks the first time the nature, scope, and content of directors’ duties to creditors when a company is nearing insolvency has been considered by the Supreme Court.

Our last newsletter commented on high inflation, dwindling business confidence and international supply chain issues. Those factors continue to influence the economic outlook, with some businesses unable to survive the strengthening head winds impacting the economy. The consumer price index increased 7.2 percent in the 12 months to December 2022, remaining stubbornly high despite significant movements in the official cash rate to 4.5%, up significantly from the 0.25% it was sitting at in October 2021. ANZ's economic forecast warns that a "policy induced recession is looming".

A large number of UK companies are in significant financial distress at the moment.

An appeal “of considerable importance for company law” in the UK could affect Australian directors' duties.

In Australia, the existence of a duty to consider the interests of creditors principally arises in the context of the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the best interests of the company. That duty finds expression in section 181(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): a director or other officer of a corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the corporation and for a proper purpose.

Creditor duty

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA the Supreme Court considered the issue of the so-called ‘creditor duty’.

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the case of Rakusen v Jepsen on 1 March 2023, deciding that rent repayment orders cannot be made against superior landlords.

The case considered whether rent repayment orders (RROs) under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, could be made against immediate landlords only, or whether superior landlords are also liable. 

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Others [2022] UKSC 25

Factual Background

1. In December 2008 and May 2009, the directors of a UK limited company, known as Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA”) distributed dividends to its parent company and sole shareholder, the defendant in the claim, Sequana SA (“Sequana”). The dividend payment in May 2009 was just over £119m.

Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction

The Irish courts have long recognised the principle that directors of companies that are insolvent must have regard to the interests of the creditors of the company as a matter of Common Law.

The European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the "Regulations"), which were signed into law last year, have reinforced and refined this principle in certain respects.