Dealing with pensions in insolvency can be challenging for insolvency practitioners (“IPs”) and the Pension Scheme Bill (“Bill”) presents another.
Whilst a prudent insolvent practitioner should not be unduly alarmed, s114 of the Bill inserts a new section 80B into the Pensions Act 2004 which gives the Pensions Regulator (tPR) power to issue insolvency practitioners with a fine of up to £1 million.
A significant amount, and payable personally!
Shail Patel acted for the successful defendants at trial in Bank of Baroda v Maniar [2019] EWHC 2463 Comm, in resisting claims by the bank on personal guarantees. The case raised a number of important points of European cross border insolvency law under the European Insolvency Regulation, and the English Court’s exercise of a foreign law judicial power.
The Government announced an independent review of HMRCs loan charge in September 2019. In this blog we consider the effect of the review on directors who have or are settling claims with HMRC and highlight that the review does not impact on potential claims against directors of insolvent businesses.
Regardless of the outcome of the review, employee benefit trusts (“EBT”) which are not legitimate, are still tax avoidance schemes.
[2019] EWHC 2651 (TCC)
Written by the construction team at Freeths LLP
The recently published Pension Schemes Bill provides for major extensions of the Pensions Regulator's powers, including the creation of new criminal offences which are very broad in scope and could potentially catch a wide range of people. Whilst the Bill is not set to become law this side of the general election, it seems likely that a future government will seek to enact the measures contained in the Bill, many of which are likely to command cross-party support.
Following the judgments in recent years on attribution to a company of its directors' knowledge in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir [2015] UKSC 23 and UBS AG (London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, the UK Supreme Court has once more returned to this issue in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (a Company Incorporated in The Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, in a case where a bank (Daiwa) was held liable for breaching its Quincecare duty of care to its customer,
As reported in Building earlier this year (4 February) the construction industry experienced the highest number of insolvencies of any UK industry in 2018. Last year saw 2,954 firms become insolvent, an increase of 12% on the previous year and more than in any year since 2013. It is well known that the construction industry is particularly prone to insolvencies and there has been a great deal written about why that is the case and what can be done about it.
在与向英国供货的国际公司合作的过程中，我们发现了一些常见问题。在上一篇文章中，我们研究了客户可能面临的破产程序类型。在“五行”系列第四篇文章中，我们围绕“火”元素来说明破产执业者在进入破产程序时拥有的重大权力：调查不当行为，并将资产收回统一偿还债权人。
火：破产执业者对债权人欺诈性交易的重大权力
破产执业者(不论是清算人或管理人)可以向法院申请撤销在公司进入破产程序前进行的特定交易。通过这种方式，可以收回资产或资金，统一向债权人偿付。下列情形属于“先前的”或“可审查”的交易：
1. 公司的资产或财产被低价出售；
2. 公司在进入破产程序前给予某债权人优先权，使其处于比其他债权人更有利的地位；
3. 公司订立了敲诈性信贷交易（交易条款有严重的敲诈性）；
4. 公司设立了无效浮动抵押，即为已发放的贷款或已提供的货物及服务的成本提供担保；
5. 公司订立的交易具有欺诈债权人的明确目的，即：使公司的资产脱离破产执业者和债权人的控制范围。
不同类型的可审查交易有不同的时间要求。例如，低价出售必须发生在公司进入破产程序前的两年内。
According to the recent case of Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Sareen [2019] – yes, they are.
Historically the courts have looked dimly on the use of insolvency proceedings as a method of debt collection. For this reason, where an individual or company appears to have the means to pay a debt but apparently refuses to do so, the courts have implied that the only proper legal recourse is through litigation. In this case, the judge explained why she considers this submission to have been taken too far.
Background