Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.

With effect from December 1, 2020, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs ("HMRC") ranks ahead of floating charge holders and unsecured creditors with respect to recovering certain pre-insolvency taxes from an insolvent business ("Crown preference"). Directors can also now incur personal liability for the unpaid taxes of an insolvent company where they are involved in tax avoidance, evasion, or phoenixism.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to avoid fraudulent transfers is an important tool promoting the bankruptcy policies of equality of distribution among creditors and maximizing the property included in the estate.

A basic tenet of bankruptcy law, premised on the legal separateness of a debtor prior to filing for bankruptcy and the estate created upon a bankruptcy filing, is that prepetition debts are generally treated differently than debts incurred by the estate, which are generally treated as priority administrative expenses. However, this seemingly straightforward principle is sometimes difficult to apply in cases where a debt technically "arose" or "was incurred" prepetition, but does not become payable until sometime during the bankruptcy case.

In Short

The Situation: With effect from 1 December 2020, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs ("HMRC") ranks ahead of floating charge holders and unsecured creditors with respect to recovering certain pre-insolvency taxes from an insolvent business (Crown preference). Directors can also now incur personal liability for the unpaid taxes of an insolvent company where they are involved in tax avoidance, evasion or phoenixism.

A basic tenet of bankruptcy law, premised on the legal separateness of a debtor prior to filing for bankruptcy and the estate created upon a bankruptcy filing, is that prepetition debts are generally treated differently than debts incurred by the estate, which are generally treated as priority administrative expenses. However, this seemingly straightforward principle is sometimes difficult to apply in cases where a debt technically "arose" or "was incurred" prepetition, but does not became payable until sometime during the bankruptcy case. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Proposed U.S. Treasury and IRS Regulations Limiting Use of NOLs

Recent Developments

Allowance of Claims—Make-Whole Premiums

Changes in law What’s new in the Polish law? An overview of selected changes in regulations and their impact on business Wierzbowski Eversheds | 2016 – Changes in law 2 Introduction We are pleased to present to you our brochure reviewing the changes in law that may soon have a significant impact on your business. The publication contains commentaries and analyses gathered from the perspective of what in our view may be important in 2016. The materials also reflect the issues our law firm encounters every day.