It is looking increasingly likely that 2012 will be another difficult year for the automotive sector, leading to a decline, not only in vehicle sales, but also in goods and services supplied to the sector. As a result, businesses may experience cash flow problems and increased creditor pressure to pay invoices.

We previously reported on Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) where the High Court held that a bankrupt’s right to draw a pension was subject to an income payments order (“IPO”) even if the individual had yet to draw his pension. This judgment represented a significant departure from previous practice under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 which protected future pension rights from IPOs and distinguished them from pensions in payment. It also effectively allowed a trustee in bankruptcy to compel a bankrupt to draw pension against his wishes.

Bankruptcy cases can be expensive affairs not only for the debtor, but also for creditors trying to obtain payment on their claims. A Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida recently approved a provision in a chapter 11 plan allowing for certain unsecured creditors to be reimbursed for their legal fees if their participation in the case helped maximize recoveries for other creditors, even though the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly allow for this kind of reimbursement.

The EU insolvency law has resulted in insolvent debtors shopping for a better jurisdiction in which to become bankrupt.  This article examines why and how.

Why?

The EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 (the ECIR), came into effect in May 2002, providing a framework for the national jurisdictions to work together by recognition of each states insolvency mechanisms.  However the EC Regulation does not harmonise substantive differences in insolvency law between the subscribing nations.

Oftentimes in bankruptcy, when one entity files for bankruptcy relief, the subsidiaries or affiliates also file. Sometimes these entities are "substantively consolidated" for bankruptcy purposes, thus combining the assets and liabilities into a single pool and attributing them to a single entity. Substantive consolidation has been permitted when, for example, debtors have abused corporate formalities or creditors have treated the separate entities as a single economic unit and their affairs were hopelessly entangled.

In December 2010, the Trustee obtained a $5 billion settlement for BLMIS customers with allowed claims.  Plaintiffs in putative class actions challenged the settlement and the Bankruptcy Court’s decision holding that the class actions violated the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code and were otherwise enjoined.  Yesterday, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the settlement and the Bankruptcy Court’s decision finding that the class actions were duplicative or derivative of the Trustee’s action and thus were void ab initio un

The healthcare industry was ailing in 2011. There were 88 publicly traded companies that filed for Chapter 11 relief in 2011, and of that amount, approximately 11 companies were in the healthcare industry. The healthcare industry led the group, with telecommunications and energy tied for second place (nine filings in each industry). The healthcare industry has faced many challenges over the years. For starters, hospitals are not always paid for their services.

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.

The TUPE Regulations contain some provisions designed to make struggling businesses more attractive to prospective purchasers. TUPE will not apply to transfer employees, and dismissals will not be automatically unfair, where insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to liquidation of assets (Regulation 8(7)). However, TUPE will apply to insolvency proceedings which do not aim to liquidate assets, and employees will have unfair dismissal protection (Regulation 8(8)).

Written Ministerial statement

Edward Davey, Minister for Employment relations, consumers and postal affairs; Department for Business, innovation and skills

In March 2011 I announced that we would be taking steps to improve the transparency and confidence of pre-pack sales in insolvency.  We subsequently consulted interested parties on measures targeted at the sales of assets in insolvent companies where these are sold to connected parties (such as the directors or their close associates).