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.

With a recent draft act to amend the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung – InsO), the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection intends to reduce uncertainty regarding insolvency claw-back, in particular regarding Sec. 133 InsO. The result may be that restructuring opinions that are now market standard when (re)financing financially troubled companies in Germany become redundant.

Current legal status

In a situation where the survival of a German company depends on restructuring measures by third parties (mainly lenders) who fear that the shareholders may use their hold-out position in a potential subsequent exit by sale of the shares, it is an option for the lenders to demand from the shareholders that the shares are transferred to a trustee to be held in a “double-sided trust” (doppelnützige Treuhand).

Key point

In a financial restructuring, creditors have to pay attention that the restructuring undertakings of the insolvent company are likely to be achieved.

Background

Under German insolvency law, the insolvency administrator may challenge a transaction if an insolvent company intended to disadvantage its creditors (and the other party knew that intention). The German Supreme Court presumes such intention if a company knew about its impending illiquidity.

Facts

This article looks at ways to restructure debt taken up by a German company. First it discusses financings governed by English law and then moves on to look at options where German law-governs the debt.

Financings governed by English law (restructuring through schemes of arrangement)

In recent years a number of German companies such as Tele Columbus, Rodenstock and Primacom have used English law scheme of arrangements to restructure their debt.

An element of the restructuring toolbox

To date, the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung) does not contain provisions governing group insolvencies. If several entities within a group of companies become insolvent, individual insolvency proceedings are opened and sometimes even individual insolvency administrators are appointed for each entity.

German proposals