On 24 March 2021, further extensions were announced to the range of government measures aimed at protecting UK companies and directors affected by COVID-19.

Measures extended to 30 June 2021

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.

Key points

• Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

• Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.

The facts

Key point

• In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.

The facts

This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:

Key Points

• Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
• The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors

The Facts

This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Key points

• The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
• A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
• In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.

The facts