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.

It should be common knowledge that a secured creditor, having received proper notice in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, faces the risk that its lien will be extinguished if it fails to object to a reorganization plan that does not specifically preserve the lien. Apparently, however, not all secured lenders realize this risk, and some fall prey to a trap for the unwary in §1141(c) of the Bankruptcy Code by failing to protect their liens and place their collateral at risk.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") recently affirmed a broad reading of the safe harbor of United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") section 546(e), which protects from avoidance both "margin payments" and "settlement payments" as well as transfers made in connection with a "securities contract." In Quebecor, the Second Circuit affirmed decisions of the bankruptcy and district courts and held that the purchase by Quebecor World (USA) Inc.

On a matter of first impression, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in the Derivium Capital, LLC bankruptcy case on May 24, 2013,1 affirming the District Court’s ruling that Grayson Consulting Inc. ("Grayson"), the chapter 7 Trustee’s assignee, could not avoid as fraudulent conveyances Wachovia’s2 commissions, fees, and margin interest payments because those payments were protected from recovery by the safe harbor of United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") section 546(e).

On April 16, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") issued its decision in In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.,¹ in which the court held that (1) the relevant time for analyzing a debtor’s center of main interest ("COMI") for purposes of recognizing a foreign proceeding is at or around the time a petition for recognition is filed; (2) the determination of COMI is dependent on the facts of each case, which may include insolvency proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction; and (3) the public policy exception to relief sough