R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court and another (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 38
On appeal from: [2021] EWHC 3013
Now that HMRC has become a preferential creditor for certain debts, other creditors – such as suppliers – could lose out.
Under the Finance Act 2020, from 1 December 2020, HMRC became a preferential creditor in insolvency proceedings. This may have significant impact on what’s left for other creditors.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) came into force on 26 June 2020, introducing significant reforms intended to provide breathing space for companies during the coronavirus pandemic.
These measures may be a welcome relief to some struggling companies. However, they could prove problematic for suppliers, who will need to tread especially carefully when dealing with distressed or insolvent companies.
What has CIGA changed?
In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law.
In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. See, e.g., JPMCC 2006-LDP7 Miami Beach Lodging, LLC v.
In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to, among other things, add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to “cure” a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a majority of courts have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit endorses this view.