Welcome to the October 2022 edition of the HFW Commodities bulletin.

In this extended edition, a number of our partners from across the globe have taken time to reflect on the profound impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the commodities sector. It includes contributions from our offices in Australia, Geneva, London and Singapore, with articles on energy and food security, sanctions, insolvency, regulation, the energy transition and force majeure.

On the back page, you will find details of the latest news and where you can meet the team next.

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?

What is the so-called "creditor duty"?

This is the duty, introduced into English common law by the leading case of West Mercia Safetywear v Dodd1 in 1988, of company directors to consider, or act in accordance with, the interests of the company's creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of insolvency.

Background

The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in the Sequana case (handed down on 5 October 2022)^[1] is the first time that the UK’s highest court has been asked to consider the proposition that directors are, in certain circumstances, under a duty in respect of creditors’ interests as distinct from shareholders’ interests.

The key takeaway points from this ‘momentous decision for company law’ (the words of Lady Arden who gave one of the leading judgments) are:

The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.

The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.

Summary

The Supreme Court held that when directors know, or ought to know, that the company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency, or that an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable, they must consider the interests of creditors, balancing them against the interests of shareholders where they may conflict. The greater the company’s financial difficulties, the more the directors should prioritise the interests of creditors.

Background

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?

Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

In Short

The Situation: As businesses continue to grapple with realising the value of business and assets which are potentially impacted by sanctions related to Russia's war in Ukraine, an English company recently utilised an insolvency process to seek court approval for a proposed divestment.

The Supreme Court has refused permission for the case of Lock v Stanley to be appealed, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s approach to questions around the assignment by a liquidator of claims in the insolvent estate stands.

Most notably the Court of Appeal confirmed that a liquidator is under no duty to offer defendants the right to acquire the claims against them unless the failure to do so would be perverse.