Claims against directors for unsuccessful tax avoidance schemes when their company enters into insolvency is not a new phenomenon, but a very recent case introduces a new potential defence for directors, as our Insolvency and Corporate Recovery specialist Tony Sampson explains.
Why would HMRC challenge a scheme?
Tennis star Boris Becker has recently been found guilty of four charges under the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act). This case shows that the Insolvency Service will take similar cases seriously and shows that there are clear consequences for individuals who try to conceal assets in bankruptcy.
As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, governments around the world are coordinating and responding with increasingly severe sanctions and export controls on Russian entities, institutions, and individuals. Insolvency practitioners first wonder whether sanctioned entities, or entities connected to sanctioned individuals, can enter into an insolvency procedure and, if so, how does the insolvency practitioner accept an appointment and get paid?
There are distinct advantages to investors sitting on the boards of their portfolio companies, not least their ability to look after their investment and work toward maximising their return. The human capital provided by investor directors can be invaluable in driving efficiencies and creating growth opportunities. The interests of investors, investor directors, and the company will generally be aligned in seeking the success of the business.
The National Security Investment Act 2021 (the “Act”) came into effect on 4 January 2022 and introduced a new UK investment screening regime focused on national security risks (the “NSI Regime”). It is similar to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) regime. The Act is wide reaching; it provides the UK government with the power to review and intervene in transactions that may pose a UK national security risk due to a transfer of control of sensitive entities or assets.
On 10 March 2022, the UK High Court held the adjourned sanction hearing regarding Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile”) second proposed restructuring plan. Despite Smile Telecoms’ first restructuring plan being sanctioned by the UK High Court back in March 2021, the African telecommunications company still faced liquidity shortages. This prompted the company to propose a second restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act”). The second restructuring plan would see the Smile Telecoms’ group senior secured lender, 966 CO S.a. r.l.
The proposed Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill and updated Code of Practice represents a commercial and pragmatic response by the legislator to resolving the apparent billions of pounds of commercial rent arrears arising out of the pandemic.
What does the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill propose?
This week, the Ninth Circuit takes a close look at a sizable antitrust jury award, and explains what constitutes a tax “return” for purposes of bankruptcy law.
OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.
The Court held that sufficient evidence supported a jury verdict holding telescope manufacturers liable for antitrust violations.
In the year leading up to lockdown in March 2020, there were 18,000 corporate insolvencies. The year following lockdown, this figure dramatically dropped by over a third to 11,000.
With the significant reduction in corporate insolvencies, it could be suggested that the Government support has actually been too effective and companies which ought to have entered an insolvency process have avoided doing so due to a mixture of financial support and restrictions on creditors, in particular landlords.
This update summarises the latest jurisprudence on insolvent schemes of arrangement (schemes) and restructuring plans (RPs), and provides an overview of the key themes that are emerging in this area.
Key Concepts and Notes