In Lomas and others v HMRC [2016] EWHC 2492 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that statutory interest payable on insolvency is not 'yearly interest' for UK tax purposes. The administrators therefore had no obligation to account for income tax on the interest payments made. The Court was also critical of HMRC's contradictory guidance on this issue.
Background
High Court considers “test case” of Wall v Royal Bank of Scotland [2016] EWHC 2460 (Comm)
The claims
The Claimant, Mr Wall (W), brought claims against the Defendant, Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS), in relation to RBS’s dealings with a now insolvent group of companies owned and controlled by W. W brought the claims in his capacity as assignee of the group’s rights and/or as beneficiary of a trust as declared by the group’s liquidators.
The Fatcs
A gift card retailer entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation with an estimated deficiency of £2.8 million. The liquidators subsequently sought declarations that various categories of payments made to the wife of the sole director and shareholder of the company, who was employed as its book keeper, constituted transactions at an undervalue. Mrs Lawson claimed that the payments, which were made to a joint bank account in her and Mr Lawson’s name, were made to discharge expense claims.
The Decision
Key Points
The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the “2016 Rules”) were published on 18 October 2016 and laid before Parliament on 25 October 2016. The 2016 Rules are due to come into force with effect from 6 April 2017. The 2016 Rules are the product of an extensive programme of consultation with a range of parties, including the insolvency profession, creditor representatives, insolvency regulators and public bodies. The aim was to streamline the process and reduce regulation with the ultimate goal of increasing returns to creditors.
The Facts
The applicants were judgment creditors of a Robert Williams (Robert). They obtained a charging order against Roberts’s beneficial interest in 75% of the shares in a company in administration and eventually became full legal owners of those shares.
The Facts
In December 2015, Hart J heard (and refused) an application by Mr Golstein for revocation of a decision of 31 May 2012 passing a proposal by Mr Bishop to enter into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA). Mr Golstein, who was claiming a sum of £122,000 from Mr Bishop, appealed the decision on the basis that his claim was not correctly admitted for voting purposes and that there was material non-disclosure by Mr Bishop which led to the passing of the IVA.
The Decision
Introduction
In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2016] EWHC 1686 the High Court was recently asked to consider whether:
- payment of dividends contravened Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006;
- the decision to pay the dividends was a breach by the directors of their fiduciary duties towards the company; and
- the dividends were transactions defrauding creditors under Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
On the Horizon
Welcome to the second edition of the On the Horizon newsletter - a regular update on upcoming cases and anticipated regulatory developments by the DLA Piper Banking and Finance Litigation team.
AUTUMN 2016
Cases to watch
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
Barristers Stephen Atherton QC and Charlotte Tan of 20 Essex Street review Ronelp Marine Ltd and other companies v STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd—in which the High Court considers whether, and the circumstances where, it should lift a stay made under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations SI 2006/1030 to allow litigation proceedings to be continued in England by a creditor with an unsecured monetary claim.