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 extent and breadth of changes brought to the United States, and indeed, the world, by COVID-19 will probably not be fully understood for a long time.  There are, however, several legislative changes made in recent days that are likely to have an immediate impact on small businesses.  One that should be important for those advising small businesses in economic crisis are the amendments to The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (H.R.

On March 18, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “District Court”), acting as appellate court for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Bankruptcy Court”), affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision that certain alleged liability of the Debtor, Edward Dudley, Sr., stemming from his role as treasurer for certain charter schools, was dischargeable and not exempt from bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii).  That is the provision which excludes student loans and similar obligations from discharge.

In a decision issued on December 28, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, awarding chapter 11 debtor and creditors’ committee professionals their attorneys’ fees based upon a “carve-out” provision in the cash collateral order and ahead of the secured creditors, despite conversion of the case to chapter 7. East Coast Miner LLC v. Nixon Peabody LLP (In re Licking River Mining, LLC), Case No. 17-6310, 2018 US. App. LEXIS 36677 (6th Cir. 2018).