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.

INTRODUCTION

In re Homebanc Mortgage Corp.,No. 07-51740-KJC, 2013 WL 211180 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 18, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Bankruptcy Court found that individual repurchase transactions having a purchase price of zero may fall within the definition of "repurchase agreement" under section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code provided that the master agreement governing such transactions acknowledges that each transaction constitutes consideration for every other transaction under the master agreement.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

MF Global, one of the world's leading broker/dealer firms entered into insolvency proceedings in both the US and the UK on 31 October 2011. US entities MF Global Holdings Ltd. and MF Global Finance USA Inc. filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Also on 31 October, the US Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") initiated the liquidation of MF Global, Inc. a jointly registered futures commission merchant and broker-dealer, under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA").

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision that has the potential to have a major impact on how contracts that provide for physical delivery of commodities are treated under U.S. bankruptcy law.  

This alert has been prompted by a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals that has a potentially huge impact on the treatment under U.S. bankruptcy law of contracts that entail a physical delivery of commodities. The decision is a positive development for those that had entered into a physically settled transaction with an entity which has subsequently become subject to a U.S. bankruptcy procedure as such transactions may qualify as a "swap agreement" and therefore fall within the "safe harbor" provisions of the U.S.