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.
A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law.
Engelhart CTP v Lloyd's Syndicate 1221: Court holds that all risks cargo policy did not cover fraudulent documents for a non-existent cargo
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: Supreme Court again considers the nature of the relationship required to find a defendant vicariously liable
A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law.
This Week's Caselaw
Essar v Norscot: Court confirms that arbitrators can award the costs of litigation funding/time limits for challenging a corrected award
The 2010 Act has now been updated by regulations (the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016) to reflect changes in insolvency law. Accordingly, the long-awaited 2010 Act will finally come into force on 1 August 2016.
It will be recalled that the 2010 Act is intended to make it easier for third party claimants to bring direct actions against (re)insurers where an insured has become insolvent. The key changes coming in are as follows: