Sequana之后的债权人义务:立法改革的经验教训

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW
J. Quinn, Philip Gavin
{"title":"Sequana之后的债权人义务:立法改革的经验教训","authors":"J. Quinn, Philip Gavin","doi":"10.1080/14735970.2023.2226802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT UK common law recognises that directors owe a fiduciary duty to consider creditors' interests when a company is insolvent or in financial difficulty. However, the scope of this duty remains unclear, particularly the degree of financial difficulty necessary for it to arise. In 2022, in BTI v Sequana, the Supreme Court did little to resolve these uncertainties, retaining a context first approach, where the duty's triggering point is based on the facts and the risk borne by creditors in the specific case. In contrast, Ireland codified its creditor duty in 2022, setting out a series of legislatively defined financial situations where the duty applies and what the duty entails. This article argues that while a search for complete doctrinal certainty in this area is misguided, a degree of certainty over and above the position in Sequana can be achieved and that Ireland's codification offers valuable lessons for future UK reform.","PeriodicalId":44517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Corporate Law Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"271 - 296"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The creditor duty post Sequana: lessons for legislative reform\",\"authors\":\"J. Quinn, Philip Gavin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14735970.2023.2226802\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT UK common law recognises that directors owe a fiduciary duty to consider creditors' interests when a company is insolvent or in financial difficulty. However, the scope of this duty remains unclear, particularly the degree of financial difficulty necessary for it to arise. In 2022, in BTI v Sequana, the Supreme Court did little to resolve these uncertainties, retaining a context first approach, where the duty's triggering point is based on the facts and the risk borne by creditors in the specific case. In contrast, Ireland codified its creditor duty in 2022, setting out a series of legislatively defined financial situations where the duty applies and what the duty entails. This article argues that while a search for complete doctrinal certainty in this area is misguided, a degree of certainty over and above the position in Sequana can be achieved and that Ireland's codification offers valuable lessons for future UK reform.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Corporate Law Studies\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"271 - 296\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Corporate Law Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14735970.2023.2226802\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Corporate Law Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14735970.2023.2226802","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要英国普通法承认,当公司破产或陷入财务困境时,董事有义务考虑债权人的利益。然而,这项义务的范围仍然不明确,特别是产生这项义务所需的财政困难程度。2022年,在BTI诉Sequana一案中,最高法院几乎没有解决这些不确定性,保留了上下文优先的方法,即义务的触发点基于事实和债权人在特定案件中承担的风险。相比之下,爱尔兰在2022年将其债权人义务编纂成文,列出了一系列立法定义的财务状况,这些财务状况适用于该义务以及该义务的含义。这篇文章认为,虽然在这一领域寻求完全的理论确定性是错误的,但在一定程度上可以实现超越Sequana立场的确定性,爱尔兰的编纂为英国未来的改革提供了宝贵的教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The creditor duty post Sequana: lessons for legislative reform
ABSTRACT UK common law recognises that directors owe a fiduciary duty to consider creditors' interests when a company is insolvent or in financial difficulty. However, the scope of this duty remains unclear, particularly the degree of financial difficulty necessary for it to arise. In 2022, in BTI v Sequana, the Supreme Court did little to resolve these uncertainties, retaining a context first approach, where the duty's triggering point is based on the facts and the risk borne by creditors in the specific case. In contrast, Ireland codified its creditor duty in 2022, setting out a series of legislatively defined financial situations where the duty applies and what the duty entails. This article argues that while a search for complete doctrinal certainty in this area is misguided, a degree of certainty over and above the position in Sequana can be achieved and that Ireland's codification offers valuable lessons for future UK reform.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
18
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信