On 14 October 2009 the Government announced a major change to the way in which company buy-backs of debt will be taxed. The change may be relevant to any corporate debt buy-back where debt is being purchased at less than face value, including the exercise of a post-enforcement call option in a securitisation.

The global financial crisis has resulted in many loans trading at below par value. This presents borrowers with an opportunity to purchase their own debt and, therefore, extinguish the debt at a reduced cost.

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.

Where a landlord forfeits its lease, subject to any available relief or exemption, the landlord is liable to business rates in respect of the premises.

Empty premises business rates exemption will provide time-limited relief to a landlord who has re-entered premises. However, a landlord should be cautious of exercising its right to forfeit a lease in cases where it does not have another tenant "waiting in the wings".

The ratepayer

Business rates are paid by occupiers and, in certain circumstances, owners of premises.

In the current recession landlords are among the fi rst to lose out when a company goes into insolvency, be it a pre-pack sale or a conventional administration process. It is important, therefore, for landlords to know what rights they retain when confronted with the administration of their tenant in order to ensure the full rent is paid - if they are still entitled to it - or, at the very least, to increase their bargaining position. In this article, we look at the circumstances where an administrator is obliged to pay the landlord’s rent in full.

The property industry has seen a dramatic decline in capital values over the last two years with peak to trough falls of approximately 44 per cent compared to a peak to trough decline of approximately 27 per cent during the recession of the early 1990s. This, together with the effect of the challenging economic climate, has led to a number of high profile insolvencies of property owners, developers and occupiers. Given the uncertain economic outlook, it is likely that these trends will continue.

Background

Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."

Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:

Background

Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."

Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:

The Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) announced on Oct. 5, 2009, that they are developing a contractual (i.e., non-judicial) alternative to their proposed Scheme of Arrangement, which is the subject of an appeal following a decision by the High Court in London that it lacks jurisdiction to implement the scheme.

The Prior Proposed Scheme of Arrangement

When a company becomes insolvent (as many have in the last year or so) one effect is that its shares will normally have nil or negligible value and the holder of the shares will therefore normally show a ‘book loss’ on them. Such losses can be relieved against taxable gains in certain circumstances.

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.