The underlying policy of the Insolvency Act 1986 is that all assets of an insolvent organisation must be made available for distribution amongst its creditors. However, the courts also have the power to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime. This long established common law principle known as the anti-deprivation principle has been used by the courts over the years to strike down contractual provisions which attempt to do just that. The principle has received an airing in two recent High Court decisions.

Guidance published by HMRC in its Corporate Finance Manual has recently been updated to reflect a change in practice regarding the corporation tax treatment of debt for equity swaps.

Debt for equity swaps are commonly used in corporate restructuring, particularly when a company is in financial difficulty. They may also be encountered in the termination of joint venture arrangements where, prior to the sale of shares in the joint venture company by one co-venturer to the other, the parties wish to convert any loans made to the company into shares.

In a market study, called “The market for corporate insolvency practitioners,” published on 24 June 2010 The Office of Fair Trading (OFT), proposed extensive reforms of the current corporate insolvency regulatory regime. After an eight-month study the OFT believes that reforms are needed to build market trust and create a regime that works in the best interests of creditors as a whole.

S271 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a bankruptcy petition may be dismissed if the court is satisfied that a debtor can pay his debt, or has made an offer to secure or compound the debt, the acceptance of which offer would lead to the petition being dismissed and that the offer has been unreasonably refused. But what is a reasonable refusal?

FSA supported HMRC in its action to wind up The Freedom SIPP, a SIPP operator. It believed this was appropriate to fulfil its consumer protection objective.

In its previous decision in April the First Tier Tribunal upheld the cross border group relief claims which Marks & Spencer made in respect of its Belgium and German subsidiaries after the subsidiaries had commenced liquidation. The Tribunal held further that, whereas the utilisation of the losses was to be determined by reference to local rules, the unutilised losses had to be re-computed according to UK principles for the purposes of determining the amounts which could be group relieved.

The High Court in England has made an interesting decision in the case of ED Games Limited. A director of that company procured that it did not pay VAT for a period prior to its liquidation and in that period, the net deficit on the company's balance sheet increased. The High Court has held that the director could be held personally liable for the increase in such net deficit.

A pre-packaged business sale (or “pre-pack”) is an arrangement under which the sale of a company’s business or assets is agreed in principle with a buyer prior to the appointment of an insolvency practitioner (most commonly an administrator), who then executes the sale shortly after his or her appointment.

Summary

A recent court decision confirmed that transparent pre-pack sales can be used where they are in the best interests of the creditors as a whole. The court ruled that:

The UK generally distinguishes between “loan relationship” debts (e.g. loan receivables) and other debts (e.g. trading debt in respect of outstanding consideration for the sale of goods or services). It is possible to turn a trading debt into a loan relationship by issue of a debenture in respect of it.

Tax treatment in the hands of the creditor