Fulltext Search

Key Points

  • Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators
  • Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings

The Facts

On 11 October 2016, the High Court10 held that statutory interest payable on an insolvency (under rule 2.88(7) IR 1986) is not “yearly interest” for UK tax purposes. Such statutory interest is therefore not subject to UK withholding tax (20%).

The facts of the case are somewhat unusual in that there was a substantial surplus in the administration and the statutory interest was estimated at £5bn. However the decision is a welcome clarification of the position. It also confirms HMRC’s previous guidance on the taxation of statutory interest (subsequently withdrawn).

On 29 November 2016, the First-tier Tribunal9 held that the issue of growth shares to certain key employees had inadvertently caused an existing class of ordinary shares to carry a preferential right to assets on a winding up. The effect of this was that both prior ordinary share issues, and future share issues, failed to meet the requirement of the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) rules.

Key Points

  • Provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of winding up order
  • Any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period

The Facts

Key Points

  • A dividend is a ‘transaction’ and therefore can be challenged under s 423 IA 86
  • A duty to act in the best interests of creditors does not arise simply because there is a risk of insolvency which is not ‘remote’

The Facts

Having launched the original version three years ago, we have refreshed our Safeguarding Your Business guide as an eBook. The guide assists clients in protecting themselves either proactively or reactively in respect of a counterparty’s insolvency with new sections on trusts and examples of how we have helped, using some of the principles raised.

Key Points

  • Interpretation of EU case law on protection of pension payments on employer insolvency not “entirely free from doubt”

The Facts

The claimant (C) was a member of the T&N defined benefit pension scheme from 1971 to 1998. In 2006, the scheme entered a PPF assessment period and C calculated that his pension under the PPF would, as a result of caps and limitations on indexation, be roughly 67% less than what he had previously expected.

Key Points

  • Trustees in bankruptcy entitled to more than return of shares wrongfully transferred by bankrupt
  • Trustees also entitled to recover loss in the value of shares
  • Appropriate basis of valuation was fair value (not market value)

The Facts

On 17 June 2016, the First-tier Tribunal (in Farnborough Airport Properties Ltd v HMRC2) held that the appointment of a receiver over a (would-be surrendering) group company meant that “arrangements” were in place for the company to no longer be under the same “control” as would-be claimant group companies.