In a judgment issued in test cases, OTG Ltd v Barke and others, the EAT held that administration proceedings are not capable of coming within the insolvency exception to the normal business transfers rule.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion and work undertaken in relation to the modernisation of the Insolvency Rules. Towards the end of last year, the Insolvency Service invited views and comments on whether to work on a complete re-write of the Insolvency Rules or to just make necessary amendments to the existing rules.

In this client briefing we explain the law and process of appointment of Law of Property Act receivers. (June 2011)

In relation to insolvent liquidations under U.K. law, one of the primary objectives will be the implementation of an efficient process to preserve and recover assets for the benefit of the creditors. This is particularly so where there is a need to instigate costly litigation or cross-border recognition proceedings and where the liquidator will want increased assurances as to the likelihood that those steps will generate positive returns.

OTG v Barke is the latest case from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to consider how the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) apply in the context of the sale of a business in administration. The case largely resolves the uncertainty in that context and affirms the general practice of administrators and purchasers of businesses from them.

Administrators will note with concern the decision of the East London Employment Tribunal in Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and Others, which suggests that administrators can be held to be personally liable for the discrimination of employees of the business in administration.

Corporate insolvencies are set to rise over the coming months and years as the effects of the cuts in Government expenditure begin to infiltrate the private sector.

In the recent English Court of Appeal case of Rubin v Coote, the court allowed a liquidator to settle litigation without having obtained the agreement of all creditors to the compromise.

The Facts

The story of the Silentnight restructuring has featured in the press today. There have been calls for the Pensions Regulator to use its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel HIG Europe to pay more towards the considerable deficit of the Silentnight Pension Scheme, following the purchase of Silentnight out of administration by the private equity firm last Saturday. Earlier this year, Silentnight had failed to obtain the PPF's approval to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement aimed at addressing its historic debt, including a pensions deficit of around £100m.

The EAT has confirmed that it is not necessary for the eventual transferee to have been identified in order for an employee, dismissed in the run up to a transfer, to claim automatic unfair dismissal by reason of a relevant transfer under TUPE (Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine & another).