header-logo header-logo

Paying dividends

13 January 2017 / Helen Mulcahy , Davina Bentley
Issue: 7729 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail
nlj_7729_bentley

Davina Bentley & Helen Mulcahy examine dividend payments to the detriment of creditors

  • What occurs in a case where dividends which were authorised by the directors of a company to the parent company set off an intra company debt?

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others; B.A.T. Industries plc v Sequana SA and another [2016] EWHC 1686 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 96 (Jul), the court considered dividends which were authorised by the directors of AWA to the parent company Sequana, which set off an intra company debt.

BTI was the assignee of claims from AWA, which challenged the payment of the dividends on the basis of Pt 23 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), against the four former AWA directors. In a second claim heard jointly with BTI’s claim, BAT alleged that the dividends contravened s 423 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) so Sequana and AWA should account for the payments.

Factual background

The facts of the case were complex but are summarised as follows: a US entity, AWA, was formed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll