The Supreme Court decision in BTI v Sequana provided the first opportunity for the UK Supreme Court to address the duty of company directors to consider the interests of a company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent or when it approaches or is at real risk of insolvency. Natalie Osafo and Francesca Bugg examine the decision and its implications for company directors.
Having experienced first-hand HMRC’s attempts to combat serious tax losses, one of the features of tax litigation over the last 15 years has been the prevalence of so-called ‘Kittel’ cases. These are cases in which HMRC seeks to deny repayments of VAT to companies buying goods in circumstances where HMRC has identified a fraud further up the supply chain, often many companies distant. They can involve significant amounts of VAT and form a substantial pillar of HMRC’s compliance strategy.
Early contingency planning can significantly reduce the shock of service provider/supplier insolvency in service/supply chains
In early November 2022, Made.com entered administration. Little over a year ago Made.com had floated with a valuation of £775 million. In mid-November 2022, Joules entered administration. Joules has 132 stores and around 1,700 employees.
It is five years since the tragic Grenfell disaster but defective cladding/dangerous living conditions and fire safety are still very much hot news. But, you may be asking, why is this relevant to insolvency practitioners?
The legislative framework for insolvency and bankruptcy in the United Arab Emirates is codified under the two following laws.
A summary winding up is the procedure used to wind up a solvent Jersey company under the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the 1991 Law).
This guide examines the procedure for carrying out a summary winding up.
Steps
The steps necessary to carry out a summary winding up are as follows:
This edition will cover:
1.1 Are there international treaties and/or cross-border instruments applicable?
The Supreme Court of Israel recently clarified the distinction between fixed and floating charges under Israeli law. While the decision of the Supreme Court did not specifically address charges on intellectual property, the tests set forth by the Supreme Court will likely affect the characterization of charges on such intangible assets under Israeli law. This decision takes on additional importance in the current economic climate, which may see more IP-rich companies in insolvency situations or looking to use their intellectual property assets to secure financing.