In the recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.

Background

Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.

The English tax authority, HMRC, has successfully challenged the restructuring plans put forward by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth).

This is the first time that HMRC has actively challenged restructuring plans at the sanction hearing. The key takeaways from the judgments:

Nasmyth

Modular construction has been heralded for several years now as a construction methodology that saves time, reduces waste and minimises cost. It is therefore unsurprising that modular construction forms part of the various "modern methods of construction" that are now being encouraged by the UK Government. Use of modular construction can range from isolated elements like bathroom pods to where the majority of the building is comprised of modules and is commonly encountered in housing, student accommodation and hotels.

The English High Court has sanctioned a restructuring plan in respect of EUR 3.2 billion of bonds issued by the German real estate business, Adler Group. The main objective of the plan was to avoid Adler's imminent insolvency by facilitating access to EUR 937.5 million of new money funding and thereby providing a stable platform from which Adler Group can pursue a solvent wind-down by asset sales over time in recovered market conditions. This represents a novel use of the restructuring plan procedure, which has previously been seen exclusively as a corporate 'rescue' tool.

Currently, the British Virgin Islands has no legislative framework for regulating third party litigation funding. Until recently, the absence of such a framework led many to believe that the rules against maintenance and champerty still operated so as in practice to prevent litigants from raising funds from third parties to prosecute or to defend claims. In Crumpler v Exential Investments Inc (BVIHC(COM) 2020/0081; 29 September 2020) Jack J clarified that third party funding arrangements were enforceable in the BVI.

What makes a charge a fixed or floating security and why is this distinction important? The characteristics of a floating charge are long-established, but how does a lender ensure that valuable capital assets, i.e. investment properties, stocks, and bonds, of a borrowing company, are subject to valid fixed charge security?

In a dramatic reversal of restructuring plan fortunes, HRMC recently successfully challenged two independent mid-market Part 26A Companies Act 2006 restructuring plans: the Nasmyth Group Limited Restructuring Plan (the Nasmyth RP) and the Great Annual Savings Company Ltd Restructuring Plan (the GAS RP). To date, only one other restructuring plan has been refused sanction.

The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

The High Court has held that certain assets sold by a company around the time of its administration were subject to a fixed charge rather than a floating charge and as such, the sale proceeds were not to be distributed to preferential creditors or unsecured creditors: Avanti Communications Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch).

City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) was a successful appeal against the decision of the district judge below to dismiss a winding up petition on several bases: first that the court had no jurisdiction to make an order because arrangements between the parties were subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, secondly because they provided for the application of Hong Kong law rather than English law, thirdly by reason of disputes regarding certain other contractual terms, and finally by reason of an issue as to whether the company had a viable cross claim.