Created Date: 14 July 2025
创作日期14 July 2025
Building

Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal delivers key ruling concerning directors' duties and creditor protection in the British Virgin Islands

东加勒比上诉法院就英属维尔京群岛董事义务和债权人保护作出关键判决

In the recent decision of Byers & Richardson v Chen Ningning (BVIHCMAP2024/0009) ("Byers"), the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal ("COA") considered the scope of the director’s duty to creditors when a company is insolvent or on the verge of insolvency (the "Creditor Duty"). In a landmark decision defining BVI company and insolvency law, the COA made the significant finding that a director can be liable to compensate the company for loss suffered by the general body of creditors as a result of a breach of the Creditor Duty, even where the transaction in question is balance sheet neutral from the perspective of the company and did not result in a personal gain to the misfeasant director.

在近期的 Byers & Richardson v Chen Ningning (BVIHCMAP2024/0009) 一案(“Byers ”)判决中,东加勒比上诉法院(“上诉法院”)考量了在公司破产或濒临破产时,董事对债权人负有的责任范围(“债权人责任”)。在这项定义英属维尔京群岛公司法和破产法的里程碑式判决中,上诉法院作出了一项重要认定:即使从公司角度而言,相关交易令资产负债表保持平衡,且并未令失职董事个人获利,失职董事仍可能因违反债权人责任而须就债权人整体因此遭受的损失对公司承担赔偿责任。

Analysis

In reaching its decision, the COA revisited the rule established in West Mercia Safetywear Ltd (in liquidation) v Dodd [1988] BCLC 250, in which it was held that, upon a company’s insolvency or imminent insolvency, directors must consider the interests of the company's creditors and may be held liable for resulting losses to creditors resulting from a breach of that duty. The rule in West Mercia had recently been further reviewed by the UK Supreme Court in two decisions: BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana [2024] AC 211 and Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank plc [2023] AC 761, and the COA critically analysed those decisions (amongst others) in reaching its decision in Byers.

In Byers, the director, Ms Chen, had authorised the preferential repayment of a US$13 million loan to the company of which she had acted as director, at a time when the company was insolvent. While the trial judge found that the director had breached her fiduciary duties, he declined to award compensation to the company, holding that the transaction had left the company balance sheet neutral and had not resulted in a net loss, based on an interpretation of the rule in West Mercia that the breach of duty needed to cause loss occasioned by the company itself. He also found that the director had not benefitted from the repayment of the loan.

The COA disagreed with the trial judge's interpretation of the rule in West Mercia. It held that the rule in West Mercia exists as a broad common law remedy, alongside the more restrictive statutory regime for voidable transactions, to protect the general body of creditors by preserving company assets once insolvency looms. In that context, the company's interests must be understood through the lens of creditor protection. The COA made clear that it is not necessary for the company to suffer a conventional balance sheet loss in order to establish compensable damage. Rather, any reduction in the pool of assets available to creditors must be treated as a loss to the company. Otherwise, the rule in West Mercia would be "a toothless dog, having no bite,” and directors could act with impunity so long as transactions superficially appear balance sheet neutral.

The COA rejected the suggestion that only a loss to the company, which was a separate legal entity to the body of creditors, would trigger compensation. It emphasised that when the rule in West Mercia was breached, equitable remedies may be granted to restore the company's asset position and enforce the director's fiduciary duty — including treating a repaid loan as subsisting for the benefit of the company. The COA further held that the question of whether or not the director received a benefit as a result of the transaction was "not a material consideration in determining whether the rule in West Mercia applied". It also rejected any notion (alluded to by Lord Leggatt in Sanford) that it would be unjust to order a director to pay compensation in circumstances where the director had no right of indemnity from the person who had received the money.

Notably, in reaching the decision, the COA distinguished the decision in Stanford and departed from parts of Lord Leggatt's reasoning in that case. In particular, the COA rejected Lord Leggatt's suggestion that a company could not be said to have suffered a loss by making payments for which it received full value. The COA concluded that: "The liability of a director who breaches the rule in West Mercia to compensate for any loss suffered by the company cannot be disputed. In the context of the rule in West Mercia, any loss to the general body of creditors following that breach is a loss to the company."

This robust decision emphasises the care that needs to be taken by directors of BVI companies in times of financial uncertainty. It clarifies that the rule in West Mercia is a broad common law remedy, and certainly expands the scope for misfeasance claims to be brought by liquidators of insolvent BVI companies against directors.

Key takeaways

The key takeaways from Byers are as follows:

  1. Creditors' interests form part of the company's interests once it is insolvent or nearing insolvency. Directors must act with these interests in mind and will need to consider the analysis of the Supreme Court in Sequana when considering when the creditor duty arises.
  2. A loss to the general body of creditors may be treated as a loss to the company for the purposes of assessing whether there is a loss for which the misfeasant director may be ordered to make compensation.
  3. The fact that the director did not gain personally from a transaction in breach of the Creditor Duty is not determinative as to whether a compensable loss has occurred.
  4. The common law rule in West Mercia coexists with the BVI statutory insolvency regime and reinforces and enhances directors' duties to prevent losses to creditors when insolvency is likely.
  5. Liquidators of insolvent BVI companies are likely to focus more keenly on misfeasance claims, following the COA's confirmation that there are fewer defences available than would be the case under the voidable transaction provisions in the BVIs Insolvency Act 2003.

Whether you are a director navigating financial uncertainty, a creditor concerned about recoveries, or a stakeholder of a distressed company, it is crucial to understand how the principles in Byers may affect your rights and responsibilities.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at Carey Olsen for strategic and practical legal advice tailored to your situation.

分析

在作出判决的过程中,上诉法院重新审视了 West Mercia Safetywear Ltd (in liquidation) v Dodd [1988] BCLC 250 案中确立的原则。该原则认为,公司破产或濒临破产时,董事必须考虑公司债权人的利益,并可能因违反该义务而对债权人遭受的损失承担责任。英国最高法院近期在以下两项判决中进一步审视了 West Mercia 案中确立的原则:BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana [2024] AC 211 案和 Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank plc [2023] AC 761 案。在对 Byers 案作出判决的过程中,上诉法院也对这两项判决(及其他相关判决)进行了批判性分析。

Byers 案中,董事 Chen 女士在其担任董事的公司破产时,授权优先偿还了该公司一笔 1300 万美元的贷款。尽管初审法官认定该董事违反了其受信义务,但他拒绝判令Chen 女士向公司支付赔偿。他认为,根据对 West Mercia 规则的解释,即违反义务需要导致公司本身遭受损失,该交易使公司资产负债表保持平衡,并未造成净损失。他还认定该董事并未从贷款偿还中获益。

上诉法院不认同初审法官对 West Mercia 原则的解释。上诉法院认为,West Mercia 原则作为一项广泛的普通法补救措施,与更具限制性的可撤销交易法定制度并存,其目的是当公司面临破产时,通过保全公司资产来保护全体债权人。在这种情况下,必须从债权人保护的角度来理解公司的利益。上诉法院明确指出,公司不一定要遭受传统的资产负债表损失才能认定可赔偿的损害。相反,如果可供债权人支配的资产池减少,则必须视作公司发生的损失。否则,West Mercia 原则将沦为“毫无威慑力的无牙之犬”,只要交易表面上看似令资产负债表保持平衡,董事就可以肆意妄为而不受惩罚。

上诉法院驳回了“公司只有作为独立于债权人团体的法律实体时,其遭受的损失才会触发赔偿”的观点。上诉法院强调,当违反 West Mercia 规则时,可授予衡平法救济,以恢复公司的资产状况,并强制执行董事的受信义务——包括为公司的利益,将已偿还的贷款视为公司需要维持生计的资金。上诉法院进一步认定,董事是否从交易中获益“并非决定 West Mercia 规则是否适用的重要考虑因素”。上诉法院还驳回了认为在董事无权向收款人追偿的情况下,责令董事支付赔偿有失公正的观点。Sanford 案中莱格特勋爵法官 (Lord Leggatt) 曾提及过此类观点。

值得注意的是,在作出判决时,上诉法院区分了 Stanford 案的判决,并偏离了莱格特勋爵法官在该案中的部分分析。特别是,上诉法院驳斥了莱格特勋爵法官关于即使公司就其已获得的全部价值付款,也不能就此认定公司遭受了损失的观点。上诉法院总结道:“违反 West Mercia 原则的董事须对公司遭受的损失承担赔偿责任,这一点无可争议。在 West Mercia 原则的背景下,违反该原则后全体债权人遭受的任何损失均属于公司的损失。

这项强有力的判决强调了英属维尔京群岛公司董事在财务状况不确定时期需要格外谨慎行事。它阐明了 West Mercia 原则是一项广泛的普通法救济措施,且无疑扩大了英属维尔京群岛破产公司清算人针对董事提起渎职索赔的范围。

要点总结

Byers 案的核心要点如下:

  1. 公司破产或濒临破产时,债权人的利益构成公司利益的一部分。董事在行事时必须牢记这些利益,并需要参考最高法院在 Sequana 案中的分析,以确定哪些情况下会产生债权人责任。
  2. 为评估是否存在损失进而可责令失职董事作出赔偿,全体债权人的损失可被视为公司的损失。
  3. 董事未从违反债权人责任的交易中获得个人利益的事实,不是认定是否发生了可赔偿损失的决定性因素。
  4. West Mercia 的普通法原则与英属维尔京群岛的法定破产制度并存,并强化和提升了董事在公司可能出现破产时防止债权人损失的责任。
  5. 在上诉法院确认,相较于根据英属维尔京群岛《2003 年破产法》中可撤销交易条款提出的抗辩,董事渎职索赔的可用抗辩理由更少之后,英属维尔京群岛破产公司清算人可能会更积极地关注董事渎职索赔。

无论您是需要应对财务状况不确定性的董事、担心追偿问题的债权人,还是陷入困境的公司的利益相关者,了解 Byers 案的原则如何影响您的权利和责任都至关重要。

请随时联系凯瑞奥信,获取针对您的具体情况量身定制的战略性实用法律建议。

Carey Olsen (BVI) L.P. is registered as a limited partnership in the British Virgin Islands with registered number 1950.

Please note that this briefing is only intended to provide a very general overview of the matters to which it relates. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied on as such. © Carey Olsen (BVI) L.P. 2025.