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?

There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?

On May 7, 2021, we issued a legal alert regarding third-party releases as part of the plan of reorganization in the Perdue Pharma case. [Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?] The order confirming that plan was appealed and our subsequent legal alert dated December 21, 2021 discussed the decision by Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S.

On May 7, 2021, we issued a client alert regarding the Perdue Pharma case and the possibility that the bankruptcy case could include a release of individual non-debtor members of the Sackler family. At that time, a plan which contained terms that would effectively extend the automatic stay protections was confirmed by Judge Robert D. Drain, who presided over the bankruptcy case in the Southern District of New York.

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

Each day creditors across the globe receive the bad news that a customer is not paying its debts or is otherwise insolvent. Israeli creditors, whether lenders or vendors, are no exception. Knowing what to do can limit exposure and maximize recovery of debts owed by the insolvent party.

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.

The automatic stay provided under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is an injunction, arising when a bankruptcy case is filed, which prevents all proceedings or actions against the debtor or the property of the estate without court permission - the so-called “lifting of the stay”.[1]

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