Should an administrator’s appointment be terminated where the motives of the appointor are improper but the statutory purpose of the administration can still be properly achieved?

Winding up petition struck out as an abuse of process where the court was not satisfied that the petitioner was a creditor.

Welcome to the February 2017 edition of our wealth and trusts quarterly digest. The digest provides up to date commentary and analysis on key sector developments. Our tax, wealth and trusts teams are able to provide a wide ranging service to assist you and your clients in responding to market trends and legal developments. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss any concerns you may have and always welcome feedback on the content of our publications. Feature When can trustees exercise their right of retention?

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 It also confirms HMRC’s previous guidance on the taxation of statutory interest (subsequently withdrawn).

In Lomas and others v HMRC [2016] EWHC 2492 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that statutory interest payable on insolvency is not 'yearly interest' for UK tax purposes. The administrators therefore had no obligation to account for income tax on the interest payments made. The Court was also critical of HMRC's contradictory guidance on this issue.

Background

In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims.  The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.

Advocates Mathew Newman and Sam Dingle acted for the Joint Administrators of a Guernsey company (Company), which was a party to ongoing court proceedings in England.

The Joint Administrators applied to the Royal Court of Guernsey seeking an order that it issue a Letter of Request to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, requesting the High Court to act in aid of and auxiliary to the Royal Court pursuant to section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (1986 Act) in recognising the appointment of the Joint Administrators as administrators of the Company.

It has been common practice in recent years for the English Courts to make administration orders in respect of Jersey companies with English situs assets, based upon letters of request from the Royal Court of Jersey issued pursuant to section 426 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986.  However, a recent case in the English High Court has challenged the basis upon which these administration orders have historically been made. 

Background

The recent decision of the English High Court in the case of Fry v Sherry [2012] (In the matter of Ruscoe Ltd (In Liquidation)) serves as a timely reminder of the potential personal liabilities faced by directors should they breach their fiduciary duties. 

Summary of the facts

In the matter of the representation of Anglo Irish Asset Finance [2010] JRC087

This is the latest decision of the Royal Court in relation to an application by a UK creditor (a bank) for a letter of request to be issued to the English High Court requesting that an administration order be made in respect of a Jersey company.