Pantiles Investments Limited & Anor v Winckler [2019] EWHC 1298 (Ch)
Background
The Liquidator of the Pantiles Investments Limited (Company) brought a claim (among others) for fraudulent trading against its former director, Ms Winckler. The claim related to a property transaction involving Ms Winkler, an associate (Mr Goldbart) and the Company. In summary, the transaction was as follows:
Insolvency may seem an unlikely scenario for your pension plan's employer today and for the foreseeable future but the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has recently published guidance recommending that defined benefit pension plan trustees should make contingency plans for employer insolvency "as with any sensible business continuity or disaster recovery planning".
The U.K. government is proposing to reintroduce preferential status to certain taxes in U.K. insolvencies beginning 6 April 2020. If enacted:
- certain taxes owed to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) would rank ahead of floating charges in U.K. insolvencies;
- the legislation would be retroactive, applying to such tax liabilities incurred at any time prior to insolvency; and
- it is likely to have a significant impact on asset-based loans (ABLs) involving U.K. obligors.
Introduction
The below is a quick snapshot of three recent tax-related developments in the insolvency and restructuring sphere.
Farnborough – appointment of a receiver and tax grouping
The below is a quick snapshot of three recent tax-related developments in the insolvency and restructuring sphere.
Farnborough – appointment of a receiver and tax grouping
Introduction
In the recent High Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In liquidation) and others v Nazir and others [2012] EWHC (Ch), the court considered the application of the legal doctrine of ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ in the context of fraud.
Introduction
The long awaited judgment in The Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v. Football League Limited, on the so called “football creditors’ rule” (the “Rule”) has been given.
This article only concerns itself with the issue of whether the Rule was or was not considered void on the grounds that it was contrary to the pari passu principle and the anti-deprivation rule and not on the fairness of the Rule itself.