Monthly Law Update | Social Housing July 2018 Introduction  Supply chain  This update shows the main legislative and case law  developments and statutory guidance issued in  connection with the Social Housing sector from the  last month (June 2018) together with links to the  relevant sources where you can obtain further  information.  If you have any concerns about any of the  developments outlined in this update, or if you require  any advice on the effect of the developments or on  how to respond appropriately, please contact: 

TV rental business, Box Clever, was created as a joint venture between Granada (now ITV) and Thorn (now Carmelite).

The Box Clever business was later sold and administrative receivers were subsequently appointed over Box Clever companies.

The Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) issued Financial Support Directives (“FSDs”) against five ITV companies in relation to the Box Clever defined benefit pension scheme. ITV referred the determinations to the Upper Tribunal.

In May 2018, Mothercare and Carluccio's became the latest in an increasingly long line of high street names to propose Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) involving significant site closures and rent reductions. On 31 May, 91% of unsecured creditors approved the Carluccio's CVA, and the following day Mothercare's creditors followed suit (although that was not the case with all of its subsidiaries, as discussed below). Next in line according to recent reports are House of Fraser and then Homebase, following the latter's acquisition for £1 by retail restructuring specialists Hilco.

Aston Villa face a winding up petition issued by HMRC for unpaid tax. If you’re a business owner the one thing you don’t want to receive is a winding up petition because as soon as your bank finds out about the petition the company bank account will usually be frozen.

This means that even if you have money to pay the petition debt you might not be able to get access to it leaving you in grave danger of going into compulsory liquidation.

HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) has issued a consultation entitled “Tax Abuse and Insolvency: A Discussion Document” on how it proposes to confront those who misuse insolvency law as a means of avoiding or evading their tax liabilities.

Briefings

A recent ruling by the English High Court in BILTA v RBS1, concerning EU Emissions Allowances (“EUAs” or “carbon-credits”) trading has re-opened the debate on when materials forming part of an internal investigation can benefit from litigation privilege. The decision further undermines the restrictive approach taken by Andrews J in SFO v ENRC2 when applying the “sole or dominant purpose test” to dual-purpose communications.

Background – Emissions Trading Fraud

The Insolvency community in Scotland has watched with interest the case of Grampian MacLennan's Distribution Services Ltd v Carnbroe Estates Ltd and in particular Lord Woolman's eyebrow raising opinion at first instance that a distressed sale by a company of its major asset (an industrial unit comprising a warehouse, vehicle workshop and yard with gatehouse) had not constituted a gratuitous alienation where the sale has been off market at a price of £550,000 whereas the property had been valued at £1,200,000 on the open market or at £800,000 on a restricted 180 day marketing period

When creditors are demanding payment and money is tight the easiest thing to do is pay those who are shouting the loudest. Often HMRC debts, including Winding Up Petitions, are ignored in favour of paying suppliers so that a business can keep going. However, ignoring HMRC can lead to unavoidable failure of a company.

The decision in Mezhprom v Pugachev, which was handed down on 11 October 2017, has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for trustees and the private client industry more generally.

Although the judgment is a first instance decision and may be appealed, the approach taken by the judge in this case to the analysis of powers conferred on protectors is an important development.

The recent case of Farnborough Airport Properties Company and another v HMRC is noteworthy for the light it shines on the dimly lit and often difficult interaction between tax law and insolvency.

The issues