What should you do if another business (i.e. a supplier, customer or other contract counterparty) is suffering distress and may be considering filing for insolvency?

This alert provides several “do’s” and “don’ts” to consider before and after insolvency and advises taking a proactive approach to dealing with distressed customers.

We previously considered the potential implications for insolvency professionals of the rise of cryptocurrencies (available here). One of the principal issues identified was the uncertainty surrounding the legal status of cryptocurrencies; what class of asset were they and, subsequently, how would they be treated under English law?

The Government announced an independent review of HMRCs loan charge in September 2019. In this blog we consider the effect of the review on directors who have or are settling claims with HMRC and highlight that the review does not impact on potential claims against directors of insolvent businesses.

Regardless of the outcome of the review, employee benefit trusts (“EBT”) which are not legitimate, are still tax avoidance schemes.

In a recent report by INSOL International, only 5% of insolvency practitioners (“IPs”) said that they had a “comprehensive or practical/working or understanding” of crypto-currency.

So with over 4,000 types of cryptocurrency now available and as payment technology continues to develop, we look at some issues facing IPs, including

• • How to identify cryptocurrency
  • How to categorise it
  • How to take control of it and sell it; and
  • What value does it have

What are cryptocurrencies?

Due to the introduction of new tax legislation on 6th April 2016, distributions made to shareholders of companies undergoing Members’ Voluntary Liquidation (MVL) are now treated as income (rather than capital) and are taxed accordingly.

In Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and another, the Privy Council recently held that anagreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court can arise through an implied term but there must be actual agreement (or consent). However, simply agreeing that an agreement should be governed by foreign law did not amount to agreement to the corresponding jurisdiction.

In SwissMarineCorporation Ltd v OW Supply & Trading[1], the High Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining Danish insolvency proceedings. This case provides a useful discussion of the circumstances in which the court are likely to grant an anti-suit injunction, and in particular where there are jurisdiction issues involving elements of both civil and insolvency proceedings.