Where a commercial property is sold by a receiver or insolvency practitioner (IP), VAT must be charged on the sale if the owner had exercised and properly notified an option to tax (OTT) in respect of the property. The IP acting on behalf of the seller needs to establish whether an OTT has been made and notified so that VAT is charged , if needed. This can be difficult if company records are in disarray, directors of the insolvent company are non-cooperative and/or the IP or receiver has limited knowledge of the property and company.
Last year saw the construction industry face significant challenges, insolvency levels were up with over 5,000 company failures and nearly 23,000 companies in distress by the last quarter.
Construction businesses in the North-East had the second highest sector insolvency rates, with an estimated 540 companies suffering from distress in the last quarter of 2022 – the highest of any sector.
This distress has now come to fruition with the recent insolvencies of two of the North East’s largest main contractors, Metnor Construction and Tolent Construction.
Introduction
Relief under ss 423-425 Insolvency Act 1986 is not limited to cases of insolvency, as the decision of David Edwards KC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Commercial Court, in Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors ([2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)) demonstrates.
Womble Bond Dickinson Restructuring Partner Samuel Dixon joins our Restructuring Advisory Partner Phil Reynolds to discuss potential resilience strategies
After facing down the challenges of COVID, the arts and cultural sector is facing a new suite of financial pressures.
简介
英国和香港的法例均规定，债权人只可以就其应获支付的算定金额提出破产呈请，但相关法例条文并无界定何谓「算定金额」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格兰及威尔斯商业及财产法庭（「法院」）澄清，复还不当得利的申索不论如何确切，仍不能被视为算定金额，因此不能成为破产呈请的依据。
背景
申请人是一名商人，亦是在英国、英属维尔京群岛及马尔他等多个司法管辖区注册的多间公司的最终拥有人。他以其中一家公司进行欺诈，游说富户投资，然后透过无抵押贷款将资金转移到他控制的其他公司。申请人被他其中一间正在清盘的公司（「答辩人」）基于以下债务提出破产呈请（「该破产呈请」），并于2020年11月被判定破产：
1.从答辩人的银行帐户支付，用于清偿申请人的个人信用卡帐单的361,899.73欧元；及
BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Others [2022] UKSC 25
Factual Background
1. In December 2008 and May 2009, the directors of a UK limited company, known as Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA”) distributed dividends to its parent company and sole shareholder, the defendant in the claim, Sequana SA (“Sequana”). The dividend payment in May 2009 was just over £119m.
Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction
This half-yearly update summarises significant insurance coverage cases in the English courts in the second half of 2022 concerning Covid-19 business interruption insurance, jurisdiction and rights against insurers of insolvent companies.
Significant Insurance Coverage Cases in H2 2022
Covid-19 BI Cases:
Cryptocurrency is a hot topic in the legal industry and one with which the legal world is really just starting to grapple. This is ever more prevalent with a number of recent high-profile crypto insolvencies including Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network and FTX.