In August we reported that the Court of Appeal had expressed doubts as to whether the EAT in Oakland v Wellswood was right to suggest that pre-pack administrations could be insolvencies "begun with a view to liquidation" (so that TUPE does not apply to transfer employees).
In the first of a two-part series, Will Pearce and Gawain Moore of Herbert Smith LLP examine some of the common tools used for, and issues that arise when, restructuring premium-listed companies.
The Insolvency Service recently opened a consultation (the "Consultation") on its proposals for a restructuring moratorium. Under the proposals, eligible companies satisfying certain qualifying conditions would be able to apply to court for a moratorium to prevent creditor action (a "Moratorium"). The Moratorium is not intended to be an alternative to formal insolvency for companies that are already insolvent but is intended to support viable companies reach a compromise with their creditors.
On 17 September the DWP published a consultation paper (attaching draft regulations) in which it proposes that certain corporate restructurings will not trigger an employer debt under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. Following on from amendments introduced by regulations in 2008, the draft regulations also make some technical amendments to the employer debt regime, which are intended to ease its operation in practice.
Section 75: a reminder
The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013 (Regulations) to amend the structure of UK annual reports have been published and laid before Parliament.
This is the twenty-ninth in our series of General Counsel Updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas.
On 8 July, the Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel published a determination to issue a financial support direction against 25 companies in the Nortel group in Canada, the US, Europe and Africa.
Background
Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."
Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:
The Supreme Court has delivered a judgment providing welcome clarification on the construction and effect of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "balance-sheet" insolvency test) and its interaction with section 123(1)(e) of the Act (the "cash flow" insolvency test).
In a keenly anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal today handed down its verdict in four appeals1 concerning the interpretation of various terms of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement.