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?

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

On 3 December 2020, the UK Government (HM Treasury) issued a consultation paper (the Consultation) setting out a proposal to implement a new “special administration regime” (the SAR) which it is proposed would apply to any insolvency of an authorised payment institution (a PI) or electronic money institution (an EMI).

On 3 December 2020, HM Treasury published the Government's proposal to implement a new special administration regime for PIs and EMIs (PI and EMI SAR), a copy of which can be seen here.

Gerade im Anbetracht der aus der Corona-Pandemie folgenden Krise stellt sich die Frage: Was passiert mit Token in der Insolvenz, insbesondere, wenn sie von einem Dienstleister für seine Kunden verwahrt werden?

Especially in view of the crisis resulting from the Coronavirus pandemic, the question arises: What happens to tokens in insolvency, especially if they are held in safekeeping by a service provider for his customers?

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.

Als Teil des gesetzgeberischen Maßnahmenpakets zur Abmilderung der wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie erleichtert das COVID-19-Insolvenzaussetzungsgesetz (COVInsAG) die rechtssichere Finanzierung kriselnder Unternehmen und setzt Anreize an deren Gesellschafterkreise: der Nachrang von Gesellschafterdarlehen und das Erfordernis eines Sanierungsgutachtens sind durch das COVInsAG suspendiert.