A business you are buying or selling, if reorganised for sale, may be less valuable if you do not avoid tax pitfalls. This note highlights the most common pitfalls, including those related to an insolvency. You can avoid most with planning.
Reorganisations
Many businesses will now be considering transactions involving corporate reorganisations. They might want to take advantage of market conditions to buy or be considering the sale of business units to refocus strategy. Or they might become involved in an insolvency or reconstruction.
The European High Yield Association (EHYA), which represents banks and investors involved in high risk bond and loan markets, has written to the UK Treasury suggesting three key areas to reform insolvency legislation to improve the 'efficiency and fairness' of corporate restructurings.
The letter suggests changes to help prevent value destruction caused by suppliers and customers terminating contractual relations, speed up resolution of disputes and restrict the influence of creditors and shareholders with no economic interest in the revalued business.
The Accountancy Investigation & Disciplinary Board (AIDB) has launched an investigation into the conduct of certain members of professional accountancy bodies who were involved in the events leading to the collapse of European Home Retail plc and Farepak Food & Gifts Ltd which left 150,000 customers short of £40m in hamper savings.
Following on from our recent blog post on Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch), in which Mr Justice Snowdon discussed the issues around wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the quantum of liability that may be placed on directors who continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent, the Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) has issued new guidance on the going concern basis of accounting and reporting on solvency and liquidity risks.
High Court holds that reports used by the Serious Fraud Office to obtain search and arrest warrants are not subject to litigation privilege in subsequent civil proceedings.
On April 20, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing to discuss public policy issues raised by last month’s report of court-appointed bankruptcy examiner for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Lehman Brothers), Mr. Anton R. Valukas. The Committee heard testimony from the following witnesses:
Panel One:
The recent financial collapse has provided a strategic opportunity for healthy financial institutions, and non-traditional investors, to capitalize on the misfortune of failing banks. The FDIC is accelerating this process by revamping its loss share program. This program gives prospective buyers of failing institutions billions of dollars in government guarantees for risking the purchase of a failing bank, inclusive of all “toxic” assets.
On May 11, the Board of Directors of the FDIC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “NPR”) proposing a rule which would govern the treatment by the FDIC, as conservator or receiver of a failed insured depository institution (a “Bank”), of financial assets previously transferred by such Bank in a securitization or participation transaction. The proposed rule would create a safe harbor to confirm legal isolation of these financial assets if certain conditions are satisfied.
The failure of an FDIC-insured commercial bank, savings association or industrial loan company (collectively referred to as a “bank”) is traumatic and economically devastating to both stakeholders in the institution, as well as the local economy served by that entity.