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.

This briefing note addresses the effect of the Insolvency Rules 2016 ("Rules") to the: (i) Electronic delivery of documents; and (ii) use of Websites to deliver documents.

Consolidation of the Rules

The Rules in relation to Electronic delivery of documents and use of websites have been applied as follows, namely:

This note addresses the changes to CVA's in the Rules.

Consolidation of the Rules

Rule 2.1 to 2.45 are applicable to CVA's (they were formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to:

An update on the changes to CVA's brought about by the introduction of the New Rules.

1. CONSOLIDATION OF THE RULES

1.1. The New Rules applicable to CVA's are found at rules 2.1 to 2.45 of the New Rules, (formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to: