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.

In 2015 oordeelde de Hoge Raad dat een curator met succes in verzet kan komen tegen een faillissement dat op eigen aangifte van de rechtspersoon is uitgesproken. Er was in dit geval sprake van een (bijna) lege boedel en er bestond geen verwachting dat er gedurende het faillissement nog activa konden worden gegenereerd. De curator zou de afwikkelingskosten van het faillissement daardoor niet vergoed krijgen uit de boedel, maar zou deze kosten zelf moeten dragen.

Op 2 juni 2017 heeft de Hoge Raad bepaald dat het adviesrecht van de ondernemingsraad in beginsel ook van toepassing is in faillissementen. De curator zal daarom de ondernemingsraad in beginsel in de gelegenheid moeten stellen om zich over een voorgenomen doorstart uit te laten.

Turboliquidatie is een snelle manier om een vennootschap te liquideren. De algemene vergadering van aandeelhouders van de vennootschap besluit tot ontbinding van de vennootschap, waardoor de vennootschap ophoudt te bestaan. De ontbinding dient vervolgens te worden ingeschreven in het Handelsregister van de Kamer van Koophandel (artikel 2:19 lid 4 BW).