In our last article, which can be found here, we reported on the government’s intention to give HMRC priority in the recovery of certain debts (including VAT, PAYE, Employee NICs, and Construction Industry Scheme deductions ) in insolvency proceedings.

In last week's Government budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that Crown preference would return but that this would be delayed to 1 December 2020. We previously wrote about Crown preference in November 2018 when the Government first suggested its return. That post, which is available here, is a handy summary of what Crown preference is and its impact on secured creditors.

Hot on the heels of our April 2020 article on the proposed reintroduction of the Crown preference, Parliament has recently approved legislation that will increase the ring-fenced amount available to unsecured creditors on an insolvency of a company from £600,000 to £800,000.

With coronavirus causing unprecedented distress to the whole global economy, all types of business in every sector will be affected. These are not normal times, and it is clear that all businesses will need to formulate coherent action plans to survive. The Government appears to be working on emergency plans to provide help to trade and industry that has already been badly affected by underlying economic uncertainties. More high-street names have closed their doors this week.

In June 2019 the Government announced a plan to introduce a new “breathing space” scheme to protect individuals and families struggling with problem debt and to give those individuals and families extra help and time to get their finances under control.

On 4 December 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in MacDonald and another (Respondents) v Carnbroe Estates Ltd (Appellant) (Scotland) [2019] UKSC 57. The appeal concerned the interpretation of ‘adequate consideration’ under section 242 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) and the remedies that courts can apply if there is a gratuitous alienation, and inadequate consideration paid for the transaction in question.

Tamara Oppenheimer, Rebecca Loveridge and Samuel Rabinowitz, Fountain Court Chambers

This is an extract from the fourth edition of GIR's The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations. The whole publication is available here. 

35.1Introduction

Sheriff McCormick at Glasgow Sheriff Court has been asked to rule on this specific point in the recent case of Gary John Cook v The Accountant in Bankruptcy [2019] SC GLA 82, which he answered in the affirmative.

This is of particular relevance for trustees in sequestration when the debtor has paid into a pension scheme and is intending to apply for a drawdown of the proceeds from that scheme, following the appointment of the trustee.

The facts are fairly straightforward:

It is extremely sad to hear the news that Katie Price has been declared bankrupt.

Although the stigma of bankruptcy may have disappeared, it is still an extremely sobering event when an individual fails financially and is declared bankrupt by a court. In an increasingly materialistic world, bankruptcy is an ever-common event in society.

The Government announced an independent review of HMRCs loan charge in September 2019. In this blog we consider the effect of the review on directors who have or are settling claims with HMRC and highlight that the review does not impact on potential claims against directors of insolvent businesses.

Regardless of the outcome of the review, employee benefit trusts (“EBT”) which are not legitimate, are still tax avoidance schemes.