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.

Il Decreto Legge n. 83 del 27 giugno 2015, convertito dalla Legge n. 132 del 6 agosto 2015, pubblicata in Gazzetta Ufficiale il 20 agosto 2015 (la “Legge 132”) ha introdotto una serie di misure di sostegno per la crescita economica relative alle procedure pre-fallimentari, a quelle esecutive e a specifici benefici fiscali.

1. MODIFICHE ALLE PROCEDURE PRE-FALLIMENTARI

• Previsioni generali relative alla procedura di concordato preventivo

Law Decree no. 83 of 27 June 2015, recently converted into Law 132/2015, which was approved on 6 August 2015 and published on the Official Gazette on 20 August 2015 (the “Law 132”) introduced a number of measures aimed at enhancing the economic growth mainly related to pre-insolvency procedures, enforcement procedures and fiscal benefits.

Con l’art. 33 del D.L. 22 giugno 2012 n. 831 il legislatore ha ampliato il novero delle ipotesi in cui le perdite su crediti iscritte in bilancio sono deducibili ai fini delle imposte sui redditi ed esteso agli accordi di ristrutturazione dei debiti omologati e ai piani attestati di risanamento la disciplina dell’irrilevanza impositiva delle sopravvenienze attive realizzate dall’impresa debitrice in relazione alla riduzione dei debiti nell’ambito delle procedure concorsuali.