On 24 March 2021, further extensions were announced to the range of government measures aimed at protecting UK companies and directors affected by COVID-19.

Measures extended to 30 June 2021

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

On 28 March 2020, the UK Government announced upcoming insolvency law reforms in response to Covid-19, intended to help companies and directors.

On 23 April 2020, the UK Government announced further measures to protect the UK high street from aggressive rent collection by prohibiting the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions to collect rent which was unpaid due to difficulties caused by Covid-19. However, at the time, it was unclear from the announcement as to whether these prohibitions would extend beyond unpaid rent to other debts.

The Chancellor announced in his budget that the Crown is to be re-instated as a preferential creditor in insolvency, reversing the changes brought in by The Enterprise Act 2002.

The Inner House of the Court of Session has found that, where a business had no realistic prospect of continuing in existence, it was not appropriate to assess whether a property was sold at an undervalue by reference to a forced sale valuation.

The Court’s judgment serves as a valuable reminder of some fundamental principles of insolvency law.

The facts

The Court of Session has confirmed that the administration in Scotland of a Scottish company will take priority over an Indian liquidation of the same company, regardless of where the company’s business and assets are situated. The Court has also confirmed that the validity and enforceability outside the UK of a floating charge is irrelevant to the validity of an administrator’s appointment in Scotland under that floating charge.