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.

Introduction

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Redwater Energy Corporation Re, 2016 ABQB 278, written by Chief Justice Neil Wittmann, clarifies that the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) addressing the environmental liability of trustees render certain provisions of provincial regulatory legislation addressing wells and pipelines inoperative to the extent they conflict with the BIA.

In Rieger Printing Ink Co, 2009 WL 477541 (Ont S.C.J. [Commercial]), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with a party's right to protection against selfincrimination in relation to an examination held under section 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. B-3 ("BIA").

In Bank of Montreal v River Rentals Group Ltd [2010] ABCA 16, the Alberta Court of Appeal had to consider the acceptance of a higher bid made after the tender closing date.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Re Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., Justice Pepall examined the conflicting interests that arise where companies within a group of restructuring companies have made intercompany loans to one another, and where the board of directors mirror each other in each subsidiary.

Recently, in Re AbitibiBowater Inc., the Province of Newfoundland sought a court order granting it access to the electronic data room of Abitibi created for the purpose of dissemination of certain non-public financial and operation information to its counsel, certain creditors, and the Monitor. The Court denied the Province’s application on the basis that it could not prove itself to be a legitimate stakeholder of Abitibi, and on several policy grounds.