When an employer is insolvent and administrators appointed, job losses are often an inevitable consequence. In this blog we look at the legal obligations arising where redundancies meet the threshold for collective consultation, and the implications for administrators arising out of the recent Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another.

When does the legal obligation to collectively consult apply?

It is axiomatic – at least as a prima facie proposition – that insolvency is only concerned about assets which belong to the insolvent when the insolvency commences (or, as it is often said when a concursus creditorum is established on the commencement of insolvency). South African insolvency law respects property rights which have accrued under our law prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings, including security interests such as mortgages, liens and cessions.

The South African economy has been significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is estimated that during the 2021 financial year alone, approximately four hundred companies were placed in business rescue. But what is business rescue and why is it relevant to small business owners and entrepreneurs in South Africa?

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) issued a Business Rescue Proceedings Report (Business Rescue Report) on business rescue proceedings from its inception on 1 May 2011 to 31 December 2021 – a “ten-year” scorecard. It takes stock of how business rescue has developed over that period and whether South Africa has matured as a late entrant into the playing field of corporate restructuring regimes. The story must be told over the “ten-year” period and dissected into two parts: pre- and post-pandemic.

Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 2008 affords a financially distressed company a fighting chance to restructure its financial obligations and avoid the destruction of value through liquidation for the duration of its formal chapter 6 business rescue proceedings. Such a moratorium is not available if a company seeks to conclude a restructure through a compromise or arrangement with all its creditors or members of any class of creditors.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

On 24 February, the Government published draft regulations that, if implemented, will impose new restrictions on pre-pack administration sales to connected parties. For all `substantial disposals' (which will include `pre-pack' sales) to connected parties, taking place within eight weeks of the administrators' appointment, the administrators will either need creditor consent or a report from an independent `evaluator'.

Context

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?