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.

Background

The ongoing saga of the Scottish Coal Company liquidation provides the background to East Ayrshire Council v Zurich Insurance [2014] CSOH 102.

East Ayrshire Council (EAC) granted planning permission for a surface mine at Dalfad subject to restoration obligations on Scottish Coal. These obligations were secured by a restoration bond granted by Zurich Insurance.  Following Scottish Coal's liquidation, it and its liquidators, were unable to carry out the restoration work.

With the depressing news that more than 20,000 Scots will go bust in 2012, and an average of 25 Scots firms a week will go under this year, it has never been more important to be alert to payment disputes.

In the current economic climate, disputes, particularly payment disputes, are rife. Consider the following scenario. You arrive at work early on Monday morning, to discover that the supplier with whom you have been having a long-running but relatively minor dispute over payment, has secured a winding up order against your company and appointment of a liquidator from the court. Or, equally distressing, a sheriff officer appears at your door with another form of court order in his hand - an interdict - stopping you from carrying out a key part of your business activities.

In a recent interesting Scottish case, HSBC Bank plc, Re an Order to wind up Kirkbride Investment Limited [2009 Scot CS CSOH 147], the Court of Session granted an application to wind up an overseas company and appoint Joint Provisional Liquidators. The company, registered in Gibraltar, was involved in property development in Scotland with the secured lending provided by the Bank.

The Facts

On 23 November a new form of diligence will be created which allows creditors to seize money belonging to a debtor in satisfaction of a debt.

In principle, all assets owned by a debtor should be susceptible to enforcement of a debt. But at present, creditors are unable to take diligence against cash owned by a debtor. To rectify this anomaly, a special category of diligence - money attachment - has been introduced by Part 8 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007.

When can a money attachment be used?