Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567

The Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited Judgment in the case of Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis, confirming that businesses which are in administration are not exempted from TUPE.

The First-tier Tribunal has issued its decision in the case ofM Gilbert (t/a United Foods) v HMRC, one of the first cases concerning a claim for entrepreneurs' relief to reach the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal was asked to decide whether a taxpayer had disposed of part of his business or, as HMRC argued, simply sold some of the assets used to carry on the business.

The case of In re Dickson, 655 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2011) centered on the status of the debtor’s manufactured home under Kentucky law.  In Kentucky, a manufactured home is considered personal property.  As such, in order for a lien to be effective, it must be noted on the certificate of title.  A manufactured home may be converted to real property, however, if the owner files an affidavit that states it is permanently affixed to real estate and then surrenders title.

In a recent appeal to the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Inre Collins, 2011 WL 4445451 (6th Cir. BAP Aug. 12, 2011), the trustee sought a declaratory judgment to determine the validity, extent, and priority of liens on the debtor’s real property held by four defendants.  The trustee appealed the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as to purported holders of the debtor’s first and second mortgages on the debtor’s property.

Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.

In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.

The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

The Facts

FILING CHAPTER 13

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision refusing to confirm debtors’ reorganization plan that included auction procedures that forbade secured creditors from “credit bidding” for the assets. Inre River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, No. 10-3597, 2011 WL 2547615 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011). In that case, the debtors (owners of various hotel properties) proposed a plan of reorganization that included auctioning certain properties encumbered by security interests.

Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".