In the recent English case of Pick v Chief Land Registrar [2011] EWHC 206(Ch), the High Court held that a buyer was entitled to be registered at the Land Registry as the registered proprietor of a property sold by a bankrupt. This was the case, even though the buyer allowed the priority period in which to effect registration to lapse, and the entry of a bankruptcy restriction was made on the title after the date of the transfer, but before the application for registration.

Key2law (Surrey) LLP v D’Antiquis 2011 EWCA Civ 1567

With the depressing news that more than 20,000 Scots will go bust in 2012, and an average of 25 Scots firms a week will go under this year, it has never been more important to be alert to payment disputes.

The Court of Appeal has resolved conflicting decisions at EAT level and confirmed that dismissals which are connected with a subsequent TUPE transfer can be automatically unfair under TUPE even where no specific transfer or purchaser is contemplated at the time of dismissal.

Rayford Homes granted security to two lenders, its trustee shareholder and the Bank of Scotland (BoS). The parties entered into an intercreditor agreement (ICA) using the BoS standard form. In a schedule to that agreement was a definition of the term ‘BoS Priority’ over ‘BoS Debt’ up to a monetary limit. The amount was not filled in, nor was the term ‘BoS priority’ actually used in the ICA.

The Pensions Regulator (the PR) is a non-departmental public body in the United Kingdom entrusted with powers designed to protect the benefits of members of work-based pension schemes. Where an employer is insufficiently resourced – a technical term meaning that it lacks sufficient assets to meet 50 per cent of the estimated debt of the pension scheme – the PR may issue a financial support direction (FSD) requiring another employer or an individual or company associated with the employer to put in place financial support for the scheme.

The UK Supreme Court has recently considered the role of commercial common sense in interpreting a contract.  Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank concerned the interpretation of bonds issued by Kookmin Bank to guarantee the return of advance payments made by six purchasers under separate shipbuilding contracts. The shipbuilder had suffered an insolvency event and the purchasers were claiming refunds of the advance payments made to the shipbuilder under the bonds. The Bank contended that the bonds did not guarantee repayment of the advances on insolvency.

Today (20th December) the Court of Appeal has clarified how TUPE applies when a business is sold after administration proceedings are instituted. It has decided that employees transfer to the new owner of the business, and are protected from transfer-related dismissals, thereby putting to rest more than two years of legal uncertainty following conflicting decisions from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

It’s been quite a week for important cases on TUPE and its operation in relation to administrations. The Court of Appeal has delivered two judgments which are of considerable importance for those contemplating and structuring transactions out of administration.

The key points to note are that:

On 16 December 2011 the special administrators of MF Global UK Limited ("MFG UK") published their proposals for achieving the purpose of the special administration.

Purpose of the proposals

The special administration of MFG has three statutory objectives: