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.

Dill Oil Company, LLC v. Stephens, No. 11-6309 (10th Cir., Jan. 15, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in a case of first impression before the court, joined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the absolute priority rule remains applicable in individual chapter 11 cases.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In re Burcam Capital II, LLC, Case No. 12-04729-8-JRL (Bankr. E.D.N.C., Feb. 15, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Maharaj, 681 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the first court of appeals to determine whether the absolute priority rule continues to apply to individual chapter 11 debtors. Taking the "narrow view" adopted by certain courts, the Fourth Circuit held that the rule was not abrogated by the amendments of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, and therefore affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of the proposed plan.

In re Premier Golf Properties, L.P., BAP No. SC- 11-1508-HPaJu (9th Cir. BAP, Aug. 13, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Ninth Circuit B.A.P. affirmed the bankruptcy court decision that post-petition income from greens fees and driving range fees were not “rents, proceeds, or profits” of the secured lender’s pre-petition blanket security interest on all real and personal property (and “all proceeds thereof”) within the meaning of section 552(b), and thus were not cash collateral.