Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

The High Court in London gave judgment on Friday, 3 July 2020 on the relative ranking of over $10 billion of subordinated liabilities in the administrations of two entities in the Lehman Brothers group.

With its judgment of November 28, 2016, the German Supreme Tax Court (Bundesfinanzhof; “BFH”) dismissed the application of the tax administration’s so-called restructuring decree (Sanierungserlass). The restructuring decree allowed, subject to certain conditions, a suspension and abatement of taxes on so-called cancellation-of-debt income (“COD-Income”) otherwise resulting from certain recapitalization measures such as the waiver of debt and “debt-to-equity swaps”.

With its judgment of 28 November 2016, the German Supreme Tax Court (Bundesfinanzhof; BFH) dismissed the application of the tax administration's so-called restructuring decree (Sanierungserlass). The restructuring decree allowed, subject to certain conditions, a suspension and abatement of taxes on so-called cancellation of debt income (COD Income) otherwise resulting from certain recapitalization measures such as the waiver of debt and debt-to-equity swaps.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236