The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
近期，北京市税务局发布了《关于进一步推进破产便利化 优化营商环境的公告》（2020年第4号，下称“4号公告”）、上海市高级人民法院与上海市税务局印发《关于优化企业破产程序中涉税事项办理的实施意见》（沪高法〔2020〕222号，下称“222号文”），旨在明确破产程序中的涉税事项，充分发挥破产制度在规范市场主体退出方面的重要作用。
破产是解决企业产业深层次矛盾，优化资源配置，提升企业产业质效的重要法治途径。破产程序中涉税事项的处理是重要一环，妥善处理破产事宜无法忽视涉税问题。实践中，我们作为税务律师也经常能接到破产程序中涉税事项的咨询，部分案件中涉税事项甚至成为左右破产程序能否顺利推进的重要因素，其中不乏争议的问题，部分问题可以从两份文件中找到答案或启示，我们在此结合两份文件的亮点与重点，对于破产程序中的涉税相关事项做简要梳理，并探讨合理应对之策。
一 非正常户、发票问题的解决
The High Court, in Quinn v Toon [2020] NZHC 816, confirmed that only the reasonable costs of the liquidators will be recoverable.
Ms Toon applied for orders under ss 276 and 278 of the Companies Act 1993 to approve her remuneration claiming $101,729 plus GST and expenses for her work as the liquidator of Investacorp Holdings Ltd.
This was a solvent liquidation. While there were no creditors, there were disputes between shareholders that Ms Toon spent a considerable amount of time investigating.
In our December 2019 newsletter we commented that the Madoff bankruptcy had one more big case to go, chasing USD3.2b held by foreign banks. The US Supreme Court has just refused to hear an application by major banks and companies, including Koch Industries Inc, to prevent Mr Picard, the bankruptcy trustee, from pursuing claims aimed at recouping funds that were transferred overseas. In the meantime, Mr Madoff has been refused early
A Singaporean Court in Anan Group (Singapore) PTE Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33 has recently confirmed the Court’s approach in assessing arbitration clauses when an application has been brought to put a company into liquidation.
The parties in this case are parties to an arbitration agreement. The respondent applied to put the appellant into liquidation. The Court considered that the winding up proceeding should be stayed with the underlying dispute to be resolved through arbitration.
The English High Court ruled that prospective emergency legislation to amend insolvency laws due to the COVID-19 pandemic could not prevent liquidation proceedings from being brought. In Shorts Gardens LLP v London Borough of Camden Council [2020] EWHC 1001 (Ch) applications were made by two companies to restrain local councils from bringing liquidation proceedings in respect of unpaid rates and costs orders.
In our April newsletter, we noted that the UK Government had announced proposed changes to insolvency laws. On 20 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (UK) was introduced. The proposed reforms include:
The Government has passed an omnibus bill which introduced amendments that will assist New Zealand to respond to the wide-ranging effects of COVID-19.
In brief the changes to insolvency legislation are:
In Re A Company (injunction to restrain presentation of petition) [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch), the Court held that it is able to take into account the likelihood of a change in the relevant law in deciding whether to restrain a winding up application from being brought.
The English Court of Appeal in Re Debenhams Retail Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 600 recently considered the inter-relationship between the UK Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and the ‘adoption’ of employment contacts by administrators under the Insolvency Act 1986. The issue was whether by paying only the amounts which may be claimed under the Scheme to furloughed employees, the administrators have adopted the contracts. Adoption means that the wages and other entitlements are payable as expenses of the administration ahead of other expenses.