It’s been a difficult last few years for the licensed trade and the hospitality and leisure sector generally, both in terms of recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and, more recently, the wider economic challenges facing the industry.

The threat of insolvency looms large and with it comes various regulatory considerations for insolvency practitioners (IPs): firstly, liquor licensing considerations that might arise post-appointment and, secondly, broader health and safety issues that can shift into sharp focus.

Premises licences

The decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session was released last week in the keenly awaited application by the liquidators of Scottish Coal who sought directions on whether a liquidator appointed to a Scottish company could:

We recently reported on the Court of Session's decision that a liquidator of a company being wound up in Scotland may abandon both heritable property and statutory licences. A full copy of that article can be accessed here.

The Court has now issued its written decision. This provides further analysis and confirms the position that we previously reported.

Parties represented

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an E&O policy issued to a now-bankrupt credit counseling company did not cover claims arising under unfair trade practices statutes, but did cover claims arising under fair debt collection statutes. Hrobuchak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2291875 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2013). The court also held that carve-outs from the policy’s definition of loss did not preclude coverage for statutory damages or damages representing the return of fees paid to the insured.

The Court of Session has held that a liquidator of a company being wound up in Scotland may abandon both heritable property and statutory licences. Affected creditors will have the right to submit a claim in the liquidation process. In the absence of that creditor holding security, the claim will rank as an unsecured claim.

Background

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an E&O policy issued to a now-bankrupt credit counseling company did not cover claims arising under unfair trade practices statutes, but did cover claims arising under fair debt collection statutes. Hrobuchak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2291875 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2013). The court also held that carve-outs from the policy’s definition of loss did not preclude coverage for statutory damages or damages representing the return of fees paid to the insured.

The Court of Appeal has issued further guidance on the thorny issue of the application of the TUPE Regulations to administration proceedings.  While many practitioners will feel that the decisions are not helpful in trying to achieve business sales in what is already a challenging market, insolvency practitioners (IPs) nonetheless need to be aware of the clarity that these cases have brought. The key points to note are:

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that certain lawsuits brought by a bankruptcy trustee were related claims, even though they alleged unique causes of action, because they were based upon the same course of conduct.  The court also found that the trustee was pursuing claims both on behalf of the policyholder-debtor and its subsidiaries, and therefore the application of the insured versus insured exclusion was “unclear.”  Nonetheless, the court found that the individual insureds were entitled to 100% of their defense cos

OTG v Barke is the latest case from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to consider how the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) apply in the context of the sale of a business in administration. The case largely resolves the uncertainty in that context and affirms the general practice of administrators and purchasers of businesses from them.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which is overseeing the liquidation of the insurer in the coverage dispute, entered an order approving the insurer’s denial of coverage under an excess policy for a $20 million settlement that two individual insureds paid into a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) redress fund. The court adopted the recommendation of the referee appointed to hear the coverage dispute, who applied California law and concluded that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment following briefing and oral argument. Wiley Rein represented the insurer before the referee.