Introduction
Insolvency Laws – all change in 2020, what about 2021?
Appointing administrators
Changes to pre-packs
Practice and procedure

From 1 December 2020 onwards, HMRC will be treated as a preferential creditor of companies for certain taxes including PAYE, VAT, employee NICs and Construction Industry Scheme deductions. In the event that a company enters administration or liquidation, HMRC's claim for these taxes will rank ahead of any floating charge holder.

This reflects recent changes made to the Finance Act 2020.

The impact on floating charge holders

On 13 January 2021, the English High Court sanctioned three interconditional Part 26A restructuring plans for the subsidiaries of DeepOcean Group Holding BV.

The plans for two of the companies were approved by the required 75% majority. While the third plan received 100% approval by secured creditors, only 64.6% of unsecured creditors voted in favour.

Consequently, at the sanction hearing the court was required to consider whether the cross-class cram down mechanism in the restructuring plan should be engaged for the first time in the UK.

On 11 February 2021, the English High Court confirmed in gategroup Guarantee Limited that restructuring plans are insolvency proceedings so are not covered by the Lugano Convention.

One of the debt instruments subject to the gategroup restructuring plan contains an exclusive Swiss court jurisdiction clause. Under the Lugano Convention, proceedings relating to "civil and commercial matters" must generally be brought in the jurisdiction benefitting from the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

In the final part of our predictions for 2021 for the UK insolvency market we look at pensions, the National Security and Investment Bill and cross border matters.

Following on from part 1 of our predictions for 2021 for the UK restructuring market part 2 looks at CVAs, directors duties and HMRC and insolvencies.

We had hoped to cover off everything in 2 parts, but 2021 looks to be a busy year so we will publish the final part of this series next week.

Company Voluntary Arrangements – the continued evolution of the CVA

The Pensions Schemes Act received Royal Assent yesterday (11 February).

For those involved in restructuring it is important to be aware that the Act introduces new offences, carrying hefty fines and the possibility of imprisonment that apply to “any person”. Given the wide scope of the drafting the new offences could capture directors, insolvency practitioners, lenders and other professional advisors commonly involved in a restructuring whose only defence to such a claim is that they acted with “reasonable excuse” – a term not defined in the legislation.

At the start of 2020, we considered what changes the UK restructuring and insolvency market might expect to see during the year – however no one could sensibly have predicted the significant and far reaching impact of COVID-19.

In part 1 of our blog, we look back at 2020 and look forward to what the UK restructuring market can expect in 2021 considering the new Insolvency Laws, expected Rule changes, pre-pack sales and practice and procedural points.

Insolvency Laws – all change in 2020, what about 2021?

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.