The European Commission has published the VAT gap report for 2013 for 26 member states (Cyprus and Croatia are not included). The VAT gap is an estimate of VAT lost due to fraud and evasion, avoidance, bankruptcies/insolvencies and miscalculations. According to the report, VAT revenue collection in 2013 failed to show significant improvement across member states compared with 2012.
In September 2013 we reported on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which provided the Government with the power to extend the law regarding the supply of essential services to insolvent customers. These reforms were anticipated to come into force in April 2014. It has now been announced that the changes will come into force on 1 October 2015.
Extension of essential supplies
Lawmakers made a few changes to the concordato rules with the foreseeable result of restricting significantly the access by debtors to the procedure, shifting the main focus from liquidation plans to schemes allowing to preserve the business as a going concern
New rules introduced upon conversion of Art. 4 of law decree No. 83/2015
Creditors being now allowed to make competing concordato proposals restricts the exclusive powers of the debtor, which are now limited to the choice to commence the procedure, while on the other side it is now always mandatory that a competitive bid process is carried on for the sale of business units and assets, when the proposal of the debtor provides for an already designated buyer
Concordato competing proposals by creditors
Lawmakers introduce further measures in order to stimulate new loans after the pre-filing for concordato preventivo or for a debt restructuring agreement, when it is urgent to prevent an unrecoverable prejudice to the business
The context
In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.
Background
Art. 57 para. 6-bis TUF (introduced by Legislative Decree No. 42/2012) provides for a special procedure of judicial liquidation of investment funds in an insolvency situation, where debts cannot be satisfied in full out of the fund’s assets, but does not state whether investment funds are eligible for concordato preventivo as an alternative to liquidation.
The issues
The Court of Cassation with the decision of 28 April 2015, No. 8575 ruled that no amendment to the concordato plan orproposal, even though more favourable to the creditors, can be made by the debtor after the end of the voting process,in a case, though, where the decision could have been influenced by the fact that the debtor himself had waived its rightto confirmation of the concordato proposal.
The case
In Smailes and another v McNally and another[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".
On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year. In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.
Background