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
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Ors considers the circumstances in which the directors of acompany are required to consider the interests of creditors and the extent to which the payment of adividend by acompany 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 acompany called Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (AWA). The claimants argued the accounts on which the directors relied were incorrect and did not give atrue 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 aprovision being included for anumber 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 abreach 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 adirector of acompany 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 awhole (having regard to anumber of matters).
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234