HM  Treasury  has  provided  the  Public  Bill  Committee  with  a  draft  copy  of  The Insolvency Act 1986 (HMRC Debts: Priority on Insolvency) Regulations  2020,  to  be  made  pursuant  to  the  current  clause  96  of  the  Finance  Bill  2020.  The  draft  regulations  have  not  yet  been  formally  laid  before  Parliament but are d

Our private credit clients are preparing for the next restructuring cycle and have called us about ultrafast bankruptcy cases. These chapter 11 cases have grabbed headlines because they lasted less than a day. Specifically, FullBeauty Brands and Sungard Availability Services emerged from bankruptcy in 24 hours and 19 hours, respectively. Is this a trend and which companies are best suited to zip through chapter 11?

A. Prepacks, Pre-Negotiated Cases, and Free-Falls

On 11 July 2019, HMRC published its summary of responses to its “protecting your taxes in insolvency” consultation.

Following the consultation, the government will legislate in the Finance Bill 2019-20 to make HMRC a secondary preferential creditor for certain tax debts paid by employees and taxpayers. This change is intended to ensure that when a business enters insolvency, more of the taxes paid in good faith by employees and taxpayers go to the Exchequer, rather than being distributed to other creditors. Draft legislation and an explanatory note is also available.

On 11 July 2019, HMRC published a policy paper discussing measures which are aimed at those  taxpayers who “unfairly seek to reduce their tax bill by misusing the insolvency of companies”.  This will be achieved by making directors and other persons connected to those companies jointly and severally liable for the avoidance, evasion or “phoenixism” debts of the corporate entity.

An explanatory note and draft legislation set out the conditions that must be satisfied in order to enable an authorised HMRC officer to issue a “joint liability notice” to an individual.

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).

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

The European Commission has published the VAT gap report for 2013 for 26 member states (Cyprus and Croatia are not included). The VAT gap is an estimate of VAT lost due to fraud and evasion, avoidance, bankruptcies/insolvencies and miscalculations. According to the report, VAT revenue collection in 2013 failed to show significant improvement across member states compared with 2012.

In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC^[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.

Background