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 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.

The news of major retailers, gyms and others filing or expecting to file for bankruptcy protection is yet another unfortunate reality of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. A corporate bankruptcy can lead to a host of insurance-related issues, including claims made against directors and officers, competition for finite insurance limits, and disputes over who has rights or priority to, and can access, insurance policy proceeds.

For many decades, companies in the business of leasing “over-the-road” vehicles such as trucks, tractors, and trailers, have used terminal rental adjustment clause (TRAC) leases to maximize the value they can provide to their customers. Traditionally speaking, TRAC leases combine the tax advantages of leasing with an option to purchase the equipment at the end of the lease term for a residual amount determined at the inception of the lease. Since 1981, it has been well-settled that TRAC leases constitute “true” leases, and not disguised financing transactions, for federal tax purposes.

In re GAC Storage Lansing, LLC, No. 11-40944 (Bankr. N.D. Ill., Feb. 27, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The court denied confirmation of the debtor’s plan, finding that: (i) the debtor failed to demonstrate that it would be able to obtain financing to pay off the balloon payment; (ii) the proposed transfer of new equity to an individual with indirect ownership interest violated the absolute priority rule; and (iii) the plan’s injunction barring actions by the secured creditor against the guarantors was overly broad.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the Matter of: Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., No. 12-10271 (5th Cir., Feb. 26, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois has arguably driven the last nail into the coffin of In re Crane, the much criticized decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois. The coffin was already set in place after the Illinois legislature passed S.B.0016 late last year, which was signed into law by Gov.