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.

Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements

The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context.  In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”

On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirpalani, the court-appointed examiner for Dynegy Holdings LLC (Dynegy), concluded that the debtor's transfer of certain assets to its parent company, Dynegy Inc., prior to its bankruptcy filing may be recoverable as a fraudulent transfer. Kirpalani further determined that Dynegy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty in approving the asset transfer. Dynegy Inc. vigorously disputes the examiner's findings.

On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirpalani, the court-appointed examiner for Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy), concluded that the debtor's transfer of certain assets to its parent company, Dynegy, Inc., prior to its bankruptcy filing may be recoverable as a fraudulent transfer. Kirpalani further determined that Dynegy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty in approving the asset transfer. Dynegy, Inc. vigorously disputes the examiner's findings.

In late 2011, bondholders in the bankruptcy case of power company Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy) moved for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate certain transactions that occurred immediately prior to the filing of Dynegy's bankruptcy petition. The transactions at issue involve the alleged transfer of millions of dollars in assets to Dynegy's parent company (a non-debtor) approximately two months prior to the bankruptcy filing.

In a case illustrating the effective use of a bankruptcy examiner, the examiner appointed by the court in the North General Hospital bankruptcy case has concluded that the hospital made over $3 million in unauthorized post-bankruptcy filing payments to the detriment of unsecured creditors. Prior to its bankruptcy filing, North General Hospital and certain related corporate debtors operated a hospital in the Harlem section of Manhattan.