The case confirmed that the provisions of the CPR apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of a winding up order. The case further stated that any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period.

Facts

Facts

This case concerned the rejection by the liquidators of Saff One LLP (‘LLP’) of a proof of debt lodged by ESS. The issue was whether a tax mitigation structure involving a loan to LLP for purported investment in the Ultra Green Scheme gave rise to a provable debt if the monies ‘loaned’ passed in a circle and no such investment was made.

Background

A recent challenge in the High Court by liquidators to recover assets from a director of an insolvent company has highlighted various points of company law. In particular, the court had to consider directors' authority, share buybacks, and transactions between a company and its directors.

The claimant (D) was the managing director and controlling shareholder of the defendant company (the Company). The Company at first had one other director, D's wife, and later a second (W).

The liquidator challenged three transactions:

In Fielding v The Burnden Group Limited (BGL) the English High Court dismissed an application for the liquidator to be held personally liable for the costs of a successful appeal against the rejection of a proof of debt.

Last years decision of the High Court in Kean v Lucas (Re J&R Builders (Norwich) Ltd) [2016] EWHC 2684 (Ch)puts into further context a number of cases concerning the rights of creditors to requisition a meeting to replace a creditors’ voluntary liquidator (or by analogy officeholders generally). But does it provide any answers?

References below to ‘Sections’ or ‘Rules’ are references to the Insolvency Act 1986 and Insolvency Rules 1986 respectively.

The Law at a Glance

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v Zhunus [2016] EWCA Civ 1036 – Court of Appeal

A group of companies brought proceedings against their former chairman (“Mr Zhunus”), CEO (Mr Arip”) and former director (“Mr Dikhanbayeva”) for misappropriation of their assets.

Case law on wrongful trading has developed significantly over the past two years, with the cases of Ralls Buildersand Brooksincreasing judicial consideration of the conduct of directors in the period preceding an insolvency.

Summary

A bankrupt was found to be in contempt of court following years of failing to comply with the terms of multiple court orders compelling him to disclose information about his financial affairs with a view to entering into an IPOA.

The Facts

On 11 October 2016, the High Court10 held that statutory interest payable on an insolvency (under rule 2.88(7) IR 1986) is not “yearly interest” for UK tax purposes. Such statutory interest is therefore not subject to UK withholding tax (20%).

The facts of the case are somewhat unusual in that there was a substantial surplus in the administration and the statutory interest was estimated at £5bn. However the decision is a welcome clarification of the position. It also confirms HMRC’s previous guidance on the taxation of statutory interest (subsequently withdrawn).