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?

The 11 October 50-page judgment of Hildyard J in The joint administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) and JFB Firth Rixson will interest not only those who deal with ISDA Master Agreements (who may want to read the entire judgment), but also many lawyers and financial and commercial institutions. This is because the events of default which it had to consider, and especially the meaning of the word “continuing” in this context, are relevant to bonds, loans and various commercial contracts.

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

The EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency was published in the OJEU on Wednesday. Members states have until 17 July 2020 to implement it, and this includes the UK as it stands: the UK has much – but not all – of it already. The UK Government has its own plans for reforming insolvency law of course, including to re-introduce Crown Preference. It is mostly about creating a rescue framework.

There are limits on the ability of shareholders to ratify dubious acts of the directors – it cannot be effective if the interests of existing creditors have become paramount (so as to subordinate the duties owed to shareholders) and are prejudiced. This is particularly relevant to upstream guarantees. On 6th February, the Court of Appeal gave its 51-page judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A which is relevant to exactly this point.

Basel and other regulators seem to regard credit risk as being under control and have identified reputational and IT risks – risk you cannot close off with prudential capital charges – as the sources of the next crisis. Another one being talked about is potential illiquidity for funds, which are buying more illiquid assets in the hunt for yield.