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.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Nikitins v EncoreFX (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 27, where the Federal Court found that funds paid into a holding account for the provision of foreign exchange services were held on trust and were not property of the liquidation.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court which determined an application to extend the time to bring voidable transaction claims, where the potential defendants were themselves insolvent, deregistered or bankrupt and the prospect of returns from the proceedings unclear.

Key takeaways

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.

Australia has posted a record fall in its GDP in 2020. At the same time, following a series of temporary measures introduced due to COVID-19, Australian insolvency filings have hit record lows.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of In the matter ofCohalan & Mitchell Roofing (in liquidation)[2020] VSC 222, where the Supreme Court of Victoria refused to grant an extension of time for filing voidable transaction proceedings.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Federal Court ordered payments made while a DOCA was in force, to which the deed administrators were signatories, were recoverable as unfair preferences.

Key Takeaways