Phoenix Tech Ltd had carried on business to defraud HMRC by participating in a kind of VAT fraud sometimes called “missing trader intra-community” fraud or “carousel” fraud. It had submitted a VAT return claiming the right to deduct VAT and a repayment in respect of various transactions in the sum of £4.5 million. HMRC denied the input tax claim in relation to the transactions and issued a misdeclaration penalty for £607,387. The company appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

1. Is a letter of support from your immediate holding company sufficient to satisfy the solvency test?

In Re a Company [2024] EWHC 1070 (Ch) was an application to restrain presentation of a petition on five grounds:

(1) that the judgment debt was time-barred; (2) that it was unclear if there had been an acknowledgment of the debt within the limitation period; (3) that there was a substantial dispute as to whether the judgment debt had been satisfied; (4) that the company was solvent; and (5) whether it was appropriate to grant an injunction.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525), Justice Black determined that a payment made by a third party was not an unfair preference because the payment did not diminish assets available to creditors.

Key Takeaways

On 31 August 2022, the Cayman Islands restructuring officer regime came into force.[1] The regime was introduced to provide increased flexibility to implement a restructuring of Cayman Islands insolvent companies, including by providing the breathing space of an automatic moratorium that operates from the date of presentation of the restructuring petition.

On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.

This article is the third in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject in this article is:

• whether debtor’s attorney can be compensated for services performed after removal of debtor from possession. [Fn. 1]

Task Force Proposal

Pursuant to Section 341 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code), the U.S. Trustee is required to convene and preside over a meeting of the creditors of a debtor (the 341 Meeting). The purpose of the 341 Meeting is to examine the debtor's financial position and to confirm facts stated by the debtor in the bankruptcy filing. While creditors are not required to attend the 341 Meeting, creditors have an opportunity to examine the debtor and ask questions related to the debtor's financials and the bankruptcy case.

The filing of voluntary insolvency proceedings by the promoters of Go Air in May 2023, being a first of its kind, gained a lot of limelight and the National Company Law Tribunal acted swiftly to admit the insolvency proceedings within a span of 10 days from the date of filing of the insolvency plea. At the time of initiation of proceedings against Go Air, the promptness on the part of the Promoters was being considered significant to assist an ailing airline company which stood grounded as on the date of initiation of insolvency proceedings.

When a liquidating debtor seeks to assume a lease, one of the lessor’s immediate questions is who will be the assignee. But what happens when a liquidating debtor seeks to assume a lease and waits up to two years thereafter to determine who the assignee will be? Although peculiar, the analysis of whether to grant the assumption rests on evaluating the three basic requirements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup

This article analyses the utility of set-off provisions in commercial contracts, especially in the context of insolvency, in light of a recent Supreme Court decision. It also provides key takeaways for ensuring the feasibility of set-off provisions and making them capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.