The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled in five conjoined appeals that TUPE applies in all administrations, since they constitute ”relevant insolvency proceedings” and not ”liquidation proceedings”. This will be the case even in “pre-pack” administrations, where a business is placed into administration but immediately sold to a purchaser who has been lined up to buy the business beforehand.

Last month we reported on the overwhelming victory of the Transeastern Lenders in their appeal of the decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida ordering them to disgorge almost $500 million in loan repayments, pre- and post-judgment interest and professional fees (“TOUSA I“1). That update can be found here.

Last week the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled in five conjoined appeals that TUPE applies in all administrations, since they constitute "relevant insolvency proceedings" and not "liquidation proceedings". This will be the case even in “pre-pack” administrations, where a business is placed into administration but immediately sold to a purchaser who has been lined up to buy the business beforehand.

In a 113-page decision issued on February 11 (the "District Court Decision"), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Gold, J.) delivered a blistering rebuke to the Florida Bankruptcy Court (Olson, J.) when it quashed the portions of the famous / infamous 2009 TOUSA decision (the "Trial Decision") holding the so-called "Transeastern Lenders" liable for fraudulent transfers in connection with T

In a 113-page decision issued earlier today, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Gold, J.), quashed the famous / infamous decision of the Florida Bankruptcy Court holding the so-called “Transeastern Lenders” liable for fraudulent transfers in connection with TOUSA’s July 31, 2007 financing transactions (the “July 31 Loans”). In re TOUSA, Inc., Slip Op., Case No. 10-60017-CIV/GOLD (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011).

So what do railroad barons, second lien lenders and satellites have in common? Strangely, the derailment of the gifting doctrine for cram-down plans, at least, in the Second Circuit. In an Opinion filed on February 7, 2011, the Second Circuit issued what amounted to a teaser for bankruptcy professionals. It started with a decision by Bankruptcy Judge Gerber of the Southern District of New York to confirm a Chapter 11 plan that included a “gift” from the second lien lenders to equity, even though unsecured creditors were not being paid in full.

In a recent decision, CML V, LLC v. Bax, et al., C.A. No 5373-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2010), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that, unlike Delaware corporations, creditors of an insolvent Delaware limited liability company cannot bring derivative actions against the members or managers of the company unless they specifically contract for such rights.

A late October 2010 case Straw Realisations v Shaftsbury House illustrates the courts’ approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators’ awards. Given the current spate of contractor insolvencies and popularity of adjudication, any trust facing an adverse adjudicator's decision in favour of its contractor should not pay without due consideration.

The Chapter 11 plan for Washington Mutual Inc. (WaMu) took a page from Engelbert Humperdinck’s song book, with numerous third parties crooning Please Release Me, Let Me Go. On January 7, however, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied confirmation of WaMu’s plan, demonstrating both Delaware’s long-standing view that third party releases should rarely be granted and a clear and laudable preference for the Psychedelic Furs’ No Release unless, like Buffalo Springfield, you Pay the Price.

A late-October 2010 case on adjudication illustrates the courts' approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators' awards.

Haymills (Contractors) Ltd went into administration in August 2009 having already won one adjudication against its employer, Shaftsbury, and having just commenced another, which it subsequently also won. Given Haymills' administration, Shaftsbury refused to pay the amounts awarded in either adjudication, relying on numerous heads to resist payment: