On 11 September 2020, the Insolvency Act 1986 (HMRC Debts: Priority on Insolvency) Regulations 2020 were made. The Regulations will come into force on 1 December 2020.

The Regulations set out the debts due to HMRC that will have ‘secondary’ preferential status in insolvencies from 1 December 2020. They are debts in respect of PAYE income tax, employee NICs, construction industry scheme deductions and student loan repayments. VAT debts are to be treated in the same way, though are not covered by these Regulations.

On 4 June 2020, a draft of The Insolvency Act 1986 (HMRC Debts: Priority on Insolvency) Regulations 2020 was provided to the Public Bill Committee. The Regulations are due to come into force on 1 December 2020.

The draft Regulations set out the debts due to HMRC that will have ‘secondary’ preferential status in insolvencies from 1 December 2020. They are debts in respect of PAYE income tax, employee NICs, construction industry scheme deductions and student loan repayments. VAT debts are to be treated in the same way, though are not covered by these draft Regulations.

Before ingesting too much holiday cheer, we encourage you to consider a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Weil Bankruptcy Blog connoisseurs will recall that, in May 2019, we wrote on the Southern District of New York’s decision in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.) (“Tribune I”).

The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.

On 26 February 2019, HMRC launched a consultation entitled “Protecting your tax in insolvency”, on the government’s proposal to make HMRC a secondary preferential creditor for taxes paid by employees and customers (the new powers are contained in the proposed Finance Bill 2019-20).

Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.

A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.

Background

A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.

Background

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.