On February 25, 2020, the United States Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation[1] struck down a judicial federal common law rule—known as the Bob Richards rule—that is used by courts to allocate tax refunds among members of a corporate affiliated group where the group does not have a written tax sharing agreement in place, or, at least in some federal Circuits, where an agreement fails to allocate the refunds unambiguously.
Entrepreneurs’ Relief – review and reform
Entrepreneurs that sell their businesses have been able to take advantage of Entrepreneurs’ Relief since 2008. It currently allows individuals to pay only 10% Capital Gains Tax on all gains on the sale of qualifying assets up to a lifetime allowance of £10m.
The Conservative Manifesto said that ER would be subject to “review and reform”. There is increasing speculation that changes will be introduced at the Budget in March.
On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision resolving the question of whether a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy that creates a basis for a final appealable ruling, or whether it simply is a controversy that is part of the broader Chapter 11 case, such that appeals would not need to be taken until the conclusion of the Chapter 11 case.
This decision by the TCC provides further consideration of the right of a company in liquidation to refer a dispute to adjudication. It follows the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Bresco Electrical services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd (“Bresco”) which we considered in an article earlier this year.
The facts
The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements — through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated — was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.
On February 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that a trustee is not barred by either the presumption against extraterritoriality or by international comity principles from recovering property from a foreign subsequent transferee that received the property from a foreign initial transferee.
On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision holding that “impairment” under a plan of reorganization does not arise even if a creditor is paid less than it would be entitled to under its contract, so long as the reduced recovery is due to the plan’s incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code’s disallowance provisions.
Intercreditor agreements between secured creditors are intended to limit the potential for litigation and result in predictable commercial outcomes with respect to recoveries from collateral in enforcement actions and bankruptcies. Despite the extensive drafting efforts of sophisticated counsel to eliminate ambiguities in these agreements, the interpretation of intercreditor agreements has been the subject of substantial bankruptcy litigation.
The judgment also provides clear guidance on challenges to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction, which is of importance to all involved in adjudications.
Background
The case concerned two conjoined appeals, Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited and Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited.
Bresco