The Court of Appeal has, in Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (OP3 International), comprehensively considered the contours of a director’s duty to consider the interest of creditors in certain circumstances (Creditor Duty). In this important decision, the apex court examined when the Creditor Duty first becomes engaged as well as the nature, scope and content of the duty.

The High Court has handed down a 533-page judgment in proceedings brought by the liquidators of BHS against its former directors for wrongful trading and misfeasance trading, finding them personally liable for at least £18 million. The case is of great significance to directors of distressed companies. We analyse some key points arising.

Click here to view the judgment.

Background

Overview

The scope and extent of a director's duty is of particular interest to officeholders of companies and their D&O insurers.

In December 2012, Halimeda International Ltd lent $140m to Sian Participation Corp. The loan agreement provided that any claim, dispute or difference of whatever nature arising under, out of or in connection with the loan should be referred to arbitration. In September 2020, in proceedings akin to a winding up petition, Halimeda applied to have liquidators appointed over Sian under the BVI Insolvency Act 2003. Wallbank J held that Sian had failed to show that the debt was disputed on genuine and substantial grounds and ordered that the company be put into liquidation.

On 11 June 2024, the judgment of Re BHS Group Limited (In Liquidation) (BHS) was handed down by Leech J in the English High Court, bringing in key developments and clarifications on directors duties in the zone of insolvency.

This is especially relevant in offshore jurisdictions such as Guernsey where English insolvency legislation is often replicated in local legislation. English common law remains highly persuasive in relation to directors duties and claims by liquidators against former directors are relatively common.

Summary of claims

Summer 2024 Editor: Melanie Willems IN THIS ISSUE “Seething on a jet plane” - conditions precedent and time of the essence in commercial contracts by Jack Spence 03 09 11 24 Diamonds aren’t forever: who is vicariously responsible when they have been stolen?

This article was first published by Insol World Magazine in Q1 of 2024.

Insolvency office-holders in the UK and elsewhere frequently rely upon litigation funders to finance their legal proceedings and, accordingly, developments in the funding market are of keen interest to insolvency professionals.

Case: Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly (as additional liquidator of CGL Realisations Limited) [2023] EWCA Civ 1135

Early indications for the construction industry in the upcoming general election, JCT publishes the new Design and Build 2024 contracts, new second staircase requirement for qualifying residential buildings and a recent judgment requiring strict compliance with notice provisions in some building contracts

General election announced for 4 July 2024

In an eagerly-awaited and significant decision, the Supreme Court, in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 (“PACCAR”), held, on 26 July 2023, that litigation funding agreements (“LFAs”) under which a litigation funder receives a percentage of any damages recovered by the claimant are damages-based agreements (“DBAs”) within the meaning of section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 190 (“CLSA”).