Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Ors considers the circumstances in which the directors of a company are required to consider the interests of creditors and the extent to which the payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).
BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others, BAT Industries plc v Sequana SA and another  EWHC 1686 (Ch)
This complex case (and resulting lengthy judgment) centred on the payment of two interim dividends by a company called Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (AWA). The claimants argued the accounts on which the directors relied were incorrect and did not give a true and fair picture of the state of AWA's finances. The reason for this was AWA was liable to indemnify one of the claimants (BAT) in relation to historic environmental liabilities which resulted in a provision being included for a number of years in AWA's accounts to reflect the directors' best estimate of the value of that liability. The claimants argued that the decision to pay both dividends was a breach by the directors of their fiduciary duties towards AWA and that the dividends constituted transactions which contravened IA 1986, s 423.
The claimants argued that AWA's directors had breached their fiduciary duties in declaring the dividend and that they should have had regard to the interests of AWA's creditors given the company's financial situation.
Section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides that a director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole (having regard to a number of matters). CA 2006, s 172(3) provides that the duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.
The court noted that the following principles were not in dispute:
The court considered a number of cases relating to the question of when the creditors' interest duty arises. The court did not accept that they established that whenever a company was 'at risk' of becoming insolvent at some indefinite point in the future, then the creditors' interests duty arose unless that risk could be described as 'remote'. The essence of the test was that the directors ought in their conduct of the company's business to be anticipating the insolvency of the company because when that occurs, the creditors have a greater claim to the assets of the company than the shareholders.
In the present case, AWA's balance sheet showed no deficit of liabilities over assets and there were no unpaid creditors knocking at AWA's door. It was not in the downward spiral of accumulating trading losses, with no income and no prospect of any income. AWA could not be described as on the verge of insolvency or of doubtful insolvency, or as being in a precarious or parlous financial state. The risk it faced that the best estimate of its financial position would turn out to be wrong and that the company might not have enough money, when called upon in the future, was a risk that faced many companies that have provisions and contingent liabilities reflected in their accounts. It was not enough to create a situation where the directors were required to run the company in the interests of the creditors rather than the shareholders of the company.
The court also considered whether an emphasis of matter that PwC included in the 2008 final accounts should have acted as a 'red flag' alerting the directors to the risks of AWA tipping over into insolvency. Witnesses offered different views on what the emphasis of matter was intended to mean in the circumstances but Mrs Justice Rose did not accept that anything can be inferred from the emphasis of matter about PwC's views, other than they had concluded that the conditions set out in the accounting standard for when an emphasis of matter is appropriate had been satisfied. If PwC had been unhappy with the accounts, they could have qualified their audit report.
The court held that the creditors' interests duty had not arisen at the time of the directors' decision to pay the dividends.
IA 1986, s 423 allows claims to be brought where, essentially, a company or individual disposes of its property at an undervalue for the purpose (the IA 1986, s 423 purpose) of putting that asset out of the reach of a person who is making, or may at some future time make, a claim against it. The claim does not need to be brought by an insolvency office-holder (indeed, the offending company or individual does not need to be subject to a formal insolvency process), and can be brought by a victim of the transaction under challenge and, despite the claim's name, there is no requirement that fraud be shown.
The first question for the court was whether the payment of the dividends by AWA was a 'transaction' for the purpose of IA 1986, s 423. Relying on the House of Lords decision in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Laird Group plc, it was argued on the first defendant's (Sequana) behalf (as being the recipient of the dividends and therefore the only defendant to that particular claim) that the payment of a dividend was not a transaction but was simply giving effect to the rights of members to participate in a company's profits—in effect, members simply receive what is already theirs, subject to the terms of the company's articles of association. However, the judge disagreed, and held that, in construing IA 1986, s 423 (which was not the provision in issue in Laird), the wording is deliberately wide in order to prevent assets being moved from a potential debtor to the detriment of creditors. Further, the payment of a dividend is not the satisfaction of an earlier obligation, for example a contractually due payment, where the decision in relation to a dividend is at the discretion of the directors, both in terms of quantum and whether any dividend is in fact to be paid.
The second question for the court was whether, in respect of each of the dividend payments, the directors of AWA had the IA 1986, s 423 purpose. That purpose (which is assessed subjectively and not objectively) need not be the dominant purpose, but must also not simply be a consequence of the transaction (Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hashmi):
The final question for the court in relation to the IA 1986, s 423 claim was Sequana's change of position defence—that having received the second dividend and sold AWA, it had lost control of the management of AWA's exposure to environmental liabilities. Had the second dividend not been paid, then AWA would not have been sold. However, the judge held that such points only go to the question of what is the appropriate relief to grant were it is found that there has been a transaction defrauding creditors under IA 1986, s 423 and do not provide a complete defence. In any event, the judge held that the facts in this case were different to the leading case on change of position in respect of IA 1986, s 423 claims (4Eng Ltd v Harper), especially as in this case Sequana knew of and shared the IA 1986, s 423 purpose and was a beneficiary of the overall transaction.
If you are a LexisPSL subscriber, click the links below for further information:
Director's guide to dealing with a company in financial difficulty
Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
0330 161 1234