In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Sequana was the parent company of Arjo Wiggins Appleton Ltd (“AWA”). In 2009 AWA’s directors authorised it to pay to Sequana (the only shareholder) a substantial dividend of €135 million.
When the payment was made AWA had ceased its trading activity and it was balance sheet and commercially (cash flow) solvent. However, it had one major contingent liability (clean-up costs and damages for river pollution in the USA), the size of which was uncertain.
Nearly 10 years later AWA went into administration and its creditors alleged that the payment of the dividend had resulted in AWA having insufficient funds to pay the contingent liability. Later the claims were assigned to BTI 2014 LLC (“BTI”).
One of the key issues for the court was: Did the directors’ decision to pay the dividend amount to a breach of their fiduciary duties (under s.172 Companies Act 2006) and were the directors obliged to take account of the creditors’ interests?
At first instance, the trial judge determined that the directors had not breached their duties by making the dividend payment.
On appeal BTI contended that the directors owed a duty to consider the interests of creditors where a proposal (here the dividend) involves a “real as opposed to remote” risk of insolvency.
The Court of Appeal wrestled with the formulation of the trigger for when a director’s duty to consider the interest of creditors should arise; the early trigger proposed by BTI was rejected in favour of a more stringent test;
“…the duty arises when the directors know or should know that the company is or is likely to become insolvent…In this context “likely” means probable, not some lower test…”.
Adopting this analysis, the Court of Appeal determined the directors did not or should not have known that AWA was likely to become insolvent when the dividend was paid.
BTI’s appeal to the Supreme Court has also been dismissed.
The Supreme Court reiterates that directors’ duties are primarily to the company (not to creditors). However, in certain circumstances that duty is extended such that the company’s interests include the interests of creditors; this was given the label “creditor duty”.
It is not a free-standing directors’ duty to creditors but reflects that where a company is insolvent, or nearing insolvency, the economic interest of creditors increases and should be considered. Moreover, such a creditor duty can apply to a decision by directors that would be otherwise lawful.
What triggers the engagement of a creditor duty? The majority of the Supreme Court describes that in these terms:
“…a formulation in which either imminent insolvency (i.e. an insolvency which directors know or ought to know is just round the corner and going to happen) or the probability of an insolvent liquidation (or administration) about which the directors know or ought to know, are sufficient triggers for the engagement of the creditor duty…”
At the time of the dividend payment AWA was not actually or imminently insolvent. Indeed, insolvency was not even probable and so the directors were not in breach of duty. Indeed whatever the test the court was in agreement that there was no breach of creditor duty here; the Court wholeheartedly rejected BTI’s argument that the duty was engaged merely because the company was at a real, rather than remote, risk of insolvency.
The history of this action shows how belligerent BTI was in seeking a judgment against AWA’s directors personally notwithstanding that it had judgment against Sequana based on its other s.423 Insolvency Act 1986 claim; the indication is Sequana had failed to pay. This has led to a Supreme Court judgment which means that the creditor duty on directors is here to stay and, when merited by the landscape on company insolvency, directors will have to consider the interests of creditors as an important aspect of their decision making. That said, the Supreme Court rejected BTI’s arguments for a wider scope of that duty, which is welcome news for directors and their insurers alike.
On a practical level, in the event that the trigger indicated by the majority of Supreme Court is applicable there will inevitably remain uncertainties surrounding (a) when (as a matter of fact) it was “probable” that a company would become insolvent and (b) at what point the directors ought to have known that. Neither appeal court gave percentages but generally “probable” is interpreted as being a 51% likelihood, which if applicable may well be difficult to determine in borderline cases.
The possibility that a dividend payment may technically be lawful but still amount to a breach of directors’ duty is a troubling prospect. Directors need to be mindful that the greater a company’s financial difficulties, the more they should be cautious about the interests of creditors. It is crucial to be fully informed on the company’s financial position especially as the journey to insolvency is often not linear; even more so given the current economic turbulence.
Directors should seek professional guidance to help them navigate such scenarios. If claims are brought against directors for breach of the ‘creditor duty’ despite professional advice having been taken on the question of the solvency of the company there is clearly the potential for symbiotic claims by directors against lawyers, accountants and/or auditors; we will be keeping a close eye on any such developments.
Co-authored by Marlene Henderson and Danielle De Val.
For further comment and discussion of the implications of the judgment from our Restructuring and Insolvency team, please click here.
In this session, we examined the legal framework around grant funded collaborations and discussed the key risks to be aware of, including IP ownership and compliance with grant terms.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has advised long standing retail client, Wilko on the sale and leaseback of its Nottinghamshire distribution centre in Worksop to logistics specialist DHL for £48m.
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
It was reported in May 2022 that the BMW-owned manufacturer had been forced to put a temporary stop on the production of all manual transmission vehicles due to the global semi-conductor shortage and the war in Ukraine. Mini stated that the move was made in order to "ensure production stability".
Browne Jacobson has bolstered its commercial practice in the UK with the appointment of commercial contracts and international trade specialist, Emma Roake, into its City-based London team.
Browne Jacobson’s national private equity (PE) lawyers have advised leading mid-market PE investment firm, Palatine Private Equity (Palatine) on its exit from CTS Group, the fast-growing specialist in testing, inspection and geoengineering consulting services to the construction and infrastructure sectors.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading mid-market private equity firm, LDC and management on the sale of specialist managed IT services provider, Littlefish to Bowmark Capital.
The Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”) joins the dots between competition law and data protection law and actively targets data-driven platforms. It is also a comprehensive regulation to take note of, with familiar GDPR-style fines tied to turnover.
In November 2021, The Civil Justice Council’s published its interim report on proposed changes to the current Pre-Action Protocols, which included a mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) gateway. In this article, we look at proposed reforms and consider what this could mean for your case.
Browne Jacobson’s private equity (PE) dealmakers have advised Palatine Private Equity backed CTS Group (Construction Testing Solutions Limited) on its acquisition of In Situ Site Investigation, a market leader in Cone Penetration Testing and Pressuremeter techniques and ground investigation services.
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading private equity investor, Rcapital Partners LLP (Rcapital) on its majority stake acquisition of managing general agents (MGAs), UK General Insurance Ltd (UKG) and Precision Partnership Limited (PPL) alongside Montague Investment Group LLP who are taking a minority stake.
Whilst the weather conditions are predicted to be cooling down this week, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is asking employers and businesses to consider adapting to recurrent warmer weather conditions for the safety and benefit of their staff. It asks employers to ensure that extreme heat becomes a firm part of longer term risk management. Climate change in any event is something all businesses will need to consider as the warmer weather becomes more frequent - extreme heat is something that will impact employers on a day to day basis.
In an unreported case (Re Active Wear Limited (in Administration)), the High Court has ruled that an out-of-court administration appointment, instigated by a sole director of a company with unmodified model articles, was valid notwithstanding the earlier decision of Deputy Judge Farnhill (also in the High Court) in the case Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing (also known as Re Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd) [2022] EWHC 191 (Ch) (02 February 2022).
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted six locations for its first factory for small nuclear power stations. We look at the impact on regions & local businesses
There are clearly challenging macro-economic factors at play but at Browne Jacobson we continue to see good levels of transactional activity with certain sectors being particularly buoyant: healthcare, financial services, energy & infrastructure and tech.
Browne Jacobson continues to see good levels of transactional activity with certain sectors being particularly buoyant: healthcare, financial services, energy & infrastructure and tech.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate lawyers have successfully advised the shareholders of specialist chemical manufacturer, Amity International on its acquisition by Belimed AG, a subsidiary of Metall Zug AG.
