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

Q4 2020 and Q1 2021 saw some significant developments in offshore restructuring, insolvency and corporate recovery, with the passage of new legislation and the handing down of judgments providing welcome clarification on laws relevant to practitioners in this area.

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.

You can read the infographic version of our guide here.

Scheme of Arrangement (Section 86)

A Court approved compromise entered into between a company and its creditors or members or any classes of them. "Arrangement" is construed extremely broadly making a scheme a very flexible restructuring tool.

Introduction

In one of the world's largest ever restructurings, Ocean Rig UDW Inc (UDW), a leading international contractor of offshore deep-water drilling services, and three of its subsidiaries have been successful in their application for the sanction of four schemes of arrangement by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, and recognition and enforcement of the schemes under Chapter 15 in the United States of America.