The draft Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2009 has now been published detailing the proposed changes to the Insolvency Act 1986. The aim of the changes is to reduce costs and the administrative burden on users of the legislation and subsequently benefi t the creditors of insolvent companies and individuals through more fl exible procedures and increased dividends.  

Some 13 years ago, Lehman Brothers' sudden and unexpected insolvency sent ripples across the banking and financial services market, some of which are still felt today.

The Court of Appeal's decision in the consolidated cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Scottish LP 3 v Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (in administration) and others¹ [2021] EWCA Civ 1523 was the latest in a long line of cases seeking to unwind the issues arising from Lehman Brothers' unexpected collapse.

The background

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act ("the Act") came into expedited effect on 26 June 2020 and is intended to maximise the chance of corporate survival and reduce the threat of personal liability on directors during this unprecedented economic crisis.

D&O insurers should be clear about one thing: this Act will not help them and in fact it could well make things worse.

The Act

On 11 July 2019, HMRC published a policy paper discussing measures which are aimed at those  taxpayers who “unfairly seek to reduce their tax bill by misusing the insolvency of companies”.  This will be achieved by making directors and other persons connected to those companies jointly and severally liable for the avoidance, evasion or “phoenixism” debts of the corporate entity.

An explanatory note and draft legislation set out the conditions that must be satisfied in order to enable an authorised HMRC officer to issue a “joint liability notice” to an individual.

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 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

A party's right to terminate a contract in the event that the other party becomes insolvent is one of the most commonly seen termination rights in outsourcing and technology agreements. However, the effectiveness of such provisions in the future could change in agreements governing the provision of IT services, as the new Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 gives the Government the power to extend the law that currently protects supplies of gas, water, electricity and communication services during an organisation's insolvency to the supply of IT services.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Service v Eurosail UK1, the Court of Appeal rejected a “mechanical” definition of balance sheet insolvency.

In the current climate, both landlords and tenants could be forgiven for wondering what would happen if the other became a victim of the recession. For both parties, a rent deposit deed can provide some comfort. Such a deed would mean the landlord has immediate access to cold hard cash if the tenant fails to pay the rent, while a struggling tenant may get valuable breathing space before the landlord turns to other remedies.  

In Stephen John Hunt (Liquidator of Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Ltd) v Richard Balfour-Lynn and others [2022] EWHC 784 (Ch), the High Court decided that the directors of a company which went into liquidation after participating in an ineffective tax avoidance scheme did not breach their fiduciary duties and payments made pursuant to the scheme were not transactions defrauding creditors.

Background