header-logo header-logo

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

Paying dividends

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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Non-court dispute resolution is no longer an alternative in family law—it is rapidly becoming the norm
back-to-top-scroll