The Tribunal has upheld HMRC's decision that a company (Danesmoor Ltd) should not be entitled to recover input VAT incurred on professional fees for a corporate restructuring. HMRC had not allowed the recovery of the input VAT on the grounds that the services were not provided to the company. The appellant argued that the advisors had been engaged and paid for by the company directly in connection with the restructuring and as such the input VAT should be recoverable.

Recent weeks have seen a number of decisions concerning liquidations – in this article we explore three of the more interesting ones.

1)  Overseas application of s.213 - Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

The past three months have seen the publication of a spate of forthcoming regulatory and legislative changes. In this bulletin we investigate some of the more significant developments.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015 – threshold for bankruptcy petitions

This order, which comes into effect on 1 October 2015, makes amendments to section 267(4) IA 1986, increasing the threshold for bankruptcy petitions to £5,000 (currently £750).

Op 23 juni 2015 zijn de wetsvoorstellen civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod en herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude door de Tweede Kamer aangenomen. Beide wetsvoorstellen behoren tot het Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht en zijn gericht op fraudebestrijding. Deze wetsvoorstellen zullen mogelijk op 1 januari 2016 in werking treden. 

Het wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht bestaat uit drie pijlers, te weten (i) fraudebestrijding; (ii) versterking van het reorganiserend vermogen van bedrijven; en (iii) modernisering van het faillissementsrecht.

The Supreme Court has confirmed in Jetivia v Bilta that where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself.

The Supreme Court also held that s.213 of the Insolvency Act, (which permits the Court to take action against those who  have conducted the business of a company in order to defraud creditors) was not jurisdictionally confined and applied to people and companies resident outside the UK.

In its judgment dated 2 September 2014, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that moveable assets obtained subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) should be considered future assets, and that ownership of such assets will be acquired after satisfaction of the relevant condition precedent (typically, full payment of the purchase price). A right of pledge over future assets created in advance will not be valid if the pledgor goes bankrupt before acquiring ownership of such assets.

In a judgment dated 20 March 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that all banks and intermediaries involved in the execution of a bank transfer, including the bank responsible for recording receipt of the bank transfer into the account held with it by the payee, qualify as parties whose services are directly or indirectly used by the payor in connection with the bank transfer.

Een failliet bedrijf kan aanlopen tegen handhavingsacties van bestuursorganen. Hierbij kan bijvoorbeeld worden gedacht aan verontreiniging van gronden onder een industrieel bedrijf, waartegen het bestuursorgaan optreedt door oplegging van lasten met sanering van de gronden als doel. Het bestuursorgaan komt dan de curator als beheerder van de boedel tegen. Kunnen bestuursorganen die bevoegd zijn om tegen bepaalde overtredingen op te treden nu de curator aanspreken tot naleving van de wettelijke verplichtingen ten aanzien van de milieuverontreiniging die voorheen op de onderneming rustten?

Employees who transfer to a new employer from a business that is under insolvency proceedings may be able to recover unpaid wages and other debts from the Secretary of State.

However, BIS v Dobrucki has confirmed that the Secretary of State will only pick up the liabilities of the old employer (the transferor).  It will not be responsible for liabilities that are incurred after the transfer has taken place; that is, any liability of the new employer (the transferee).

The background