In this article, we examine (1) the new regime for safeguarding of customer funds applying to UK payment and electronic money institutions, (2) the impact these reforms will have on those firms and (3) in particular, the indirect effect the reforms will have on banks holding safeguarded funds and insolvency practitioners who manage the insolvency of a failed payment or electronic money institution.
The Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025 aims to provide greater protection to employees where their employer becomes insolvent. The Bill will allow greater access to a Social Insurance Fund to protect employee pay-related entitlements and claims for historic entitlements over the previous 40 years. The devil is in the detail, however, with very specific caps and limitations.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 888). In the case, it was determined that a restructuring adviser who engineered an asset-stripping scheme may be found liable for the full value of the loss arising out of the scheme.
Key Takeaways
They say every man needs protection, they say that every man must fall.1
Summary
In the first appeal of a restructuring plan under Part 26A Companies Act 2006, the English Court of Appeal unanimously set aside the first instance decision sanctioning the plan proposed by AGPS BondCo PLC, part of the Adler real estate group1.
The number of company insolvencies in 2023 increased by over a third compared to 2022. The hospitality sector was particularly badly affected, with 53% more insolvencies than in 2022.
It appears that 2024 will be similarly challenging for companies in the hospitality sector. The Restaurant Association of Ireland (RAI) has set out the main challenges faced by the industry, including increased energy and labour costs, and the VAT rate reverting to 13.5% after having been reduced to 9% during the covid-19 pandemic.
This week’s TGIF summarises the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision granting leave to proceed against a company despite the appointment of a small business restructuring (SBR) practitioner under Pt 5.3B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).
Key takeaways
Summary
Trustees and officeholders (such as administrators, receivers and liquidators) can ask the Court to approve steps that they propose to take in the administration of their estate (such as the sale of an asset or settlement of a claim).
There are certain circumstances where liquidators can be held personally liable for costs orders made in proceedings taken by them.
Under the so called “Ballyrider Principles[1]”: