In the recent case of Re Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) (Re Avanti), the court considered the nature of fixed and floating charges. Whether a charge is fixed or floating has implications for both lenders and administrators in terms of determining to what extent a chargor can recover from the charged assets and to what extent a borrower can deal with its assets.

Background of case:

In the recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.

Background

Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.

The English tax authority, HMRC, has successfully challenged the restructuring plans put forward by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth).

This is the first time that HMRC has actively challenged restructuring plans at the sanction hearing. The key takeaways from the judgments:

Nasmyth

In a dramatic reversal of restructuring plan fortunes, HRMC recently successfully challenged two independent mid-market Part 26A Companies Act 2006 restructuring plans: the Nasmyth Group Limited Restructuring Plan (the Nasmyth RP) and the Great Annual Savings Company Ltd Restructuring Plan (the GAS RP). To date, only one other restructuring plan has been refused sanction.

The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

On 16 May 2023, Mr Justice Adam Johnson in the High Court refused to sanction the restructuring plan proposed by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) following objections from HMRC.

In the recent case of Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the High Court revisited the perpetually knotty question: what level of control is necessary for a charge over assets to take effect as a fixed, rather than floating, charge?

Since their introduction to the English insolvency regime in 2020, court sanctioned restructuring plans under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 – a new, more-flexible alternative to traditional UK restructuring tools – which take some of their DNA from U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings (in particular, the ‘cross class cram down’ mechanism), have been a hot topic for insolvency lawyers.

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².

What can we say about the outcome of the GAS (Great Annual Savings Company Limited) sanction hearing that hasn’t already been reported?

It’s impossible not to comment on the fact that the plan was not sanctioned, and as a consequence of fierce opposition from HMRC that it avoided cram down. Nor that the court refused to sanction the plan on the basis that the conditions for cram down were not met – the court was not satisfied that HMRC would be better off under the plan and even if it were the judge said he would have not exercised his discretion to cram down.