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

The appointment of joint liquidators can be a useful tool in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly when assets are located in a number of jurisdictions. However, courts must ensure that a joint liquidator appointment does not lead to conflicting duties based on the respective laws in each jurisdiction. This was the main issue for consideration in West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Hatfield Property Ltd, where Jack J was satisfied that the appointment of joint liquidators was necessary.

A recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reaffirms its position that only in rare cases will it be appropriate to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of two lower tribunals.¹ The Privy Council found Byers and others v Chen Ningning to be one such case on the basis that an error in findings of fact as to the Respondent’s status as a director had been made by the first instance trial judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Introduction

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.

A recent decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has confirmed that, whilst the courts of the British Virgin Islands (BVI) will recognise the appointment of foreign representatives (including liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy) as having status in the BVI in accordance with his or her appointment by a foreign court, they may only provide assistance to representatives from certain designated countries.

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.