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 article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.

It’s important to consider all your options before opting for bankruptcy. David Pomeroy and Rachel Maddocks, of Ashfords, explain.

The High Court considers questions relating to the location of three companies' COMIs and an alleged "improper motive" regarding the appointment of administrators

(1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL v (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICHOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN (5) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY : (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN v (1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL (3) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY sub noms (1) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (KNOWLE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (2) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (ELLESMERE PORT) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (3) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (BELLE VALE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2017] EWHC 25 (Ch)

The Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") has handed down a notable judgment in the case of ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Brasov (DGRFP) [2016] All ER (D) 110 (Nov), ruling that domestic laws governing forfeiture of a claim in insolvency proceedings apply to foreign creditors too

Background

ECJ decides that rights in rem should be interpreted in accordance with German law, despite insolvency proceedings having been opened in France

In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").