The English tax authority, HMRC, has successfully challenged the restructuring plans put forward by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth).
This is the first time that HMRC has actively challenged restructuring plans at the sanction hearing. The key takeaways from the judgments:
Nasmyth
Background
The impact of the opening of insolvency proceedings on options granted in combined contracts (for example, a lease contract containing a call option for the leased real estate) had been in dispute for a long time.
Decision
The Austrian Supreme Court held that call options granted in lease contracts where the option fee has been paid do not expire with the opening of insolvency proceedings, nor are they subject to the right of the insolvency administrator to terminate the lease contract.
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled on the question of whether an agreement that grants release from a contract on grounds of insolvency or the opening of insolvency proceedings is effective.
Background
In the recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.
Background
Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.
The Bankruptcy Code’s Subchapter V provides hope to formerly successful entrepreneurs. It’s a hope that never before existed.
I’ll try to explain.
Formerly Successful Entrepreneurs – A Historical Problem
The Bankruptcy Code became effective in October of 1979. And I’ve been practicing under the Bankruptcy Code from the beginning: licensed in 1980.
Here’s an observation that’s been true throughout my career, until enactment of Subchapter V:
Answers to these two questions can get tricky:
- When should a previously successful business engage distress-debt counsel?
- What is the role of the business’s general counsel once that happens?
Second Question: Role
Here’s the answer to the second question first:
On 12th May 2023, the High Court of England and Wales issued another significant judgment which is expected to advance the progress of reciprocal enforcement of judgments between the courts of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and England and Wales.
The hits keep coming for student loans in bankruptcy.
This time the hit is this:
- student loans for attending medical school do not qualify as “commercial or business” loans for Subchapter V eligibility.
The central finding, for a medical student who worked as an employee for ten years before becoming an entrepreneur, is this:
- “the gap between incurring the debt and actually engaging in . . . commercial or business activity as an owner is simply too great.”
Background
Is a debtor “engaged in commercial or business activities” for Subchapter V eligibility?
Such question has been addressed on many occasions and by many courts.
The trend seems to be toward a conclusion that the nature and quantity of “commercial or business activities” required for Subchapter V eligibility is this:
- Nature = “easily met”; and
- Quantity = “not much.”
The latest opinion to confirm the trend is In re Robinson, Case No. 22-2414, Southern Mississippi Bankruptcy Court (issued April 17, 2023; Doc. 90).
Oral arguments occur on April 24, 2023, before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, Case No 22-227. Here is a link to the oral arguments transcript.
What follows is an attempt to, (i) summarize the facts and issue in the case, and (ii) provide a sampling of questions and comments from the justices during oral arguments.
Facts
Here’s what happened: