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.

695 Buggy Circle, LLC, along with six subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. All of the Debtors are affiliates of, and are seeking joint administration with, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, et al. (Lead Case No. 17-12560).

Candi Controls, Inc., an Oakland, CA-based provider of cloud-based services for energy and facilities management, has had an involuntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 filed against it in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-10679). The involuntary petition was filed by CGM Partners, Howard Elias and Kelly Yang Living Trust, who collectively assert $575,000 in note claims.

Bellflower Funding, LLC and Wall 123, LLC, two affiliates of the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, have filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case Nos. 18-10507 & 18-10508).

Orexigen Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company focused on the treatment of obesity based in La Jolla, CA, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-10518). According to the Petition, as of November 30, 2017, Orexigen had $265.1 million in assets and $226.4 million in liabilities.

Zohar III, Corp., along with five of its subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10512).