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 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

A court affirmed the denial of W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos insurance claims against the liquidation estate of Grace’s insolvent excess-of-loss insurer, on the ground that Grace failed to submit timely “absolute” claims under New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. Grace, which has been undergoing bankruptcy restructuring, had established a plan with a creditor’s committee to create a trust to pay asbestos claims.

Reliance Insurance Company in Liquidation (the “Liquidator”) petitioned a Pennsylvania state court for a declaratory judgment holding that Aramark Corporation must reimburse certain state guaranty associations (“GAs”) for claims allegedly improperly paid to Aramark and subsequently presented to the Reliance Estate by the GAs for payment. The Liquidator also sought a declaration that Aramark’s claims against the Estate should be given low priority.

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:

An English appellate court permitted an Australian reinsurer in liquidation to enforce a judgment entered in Australian insolvency proceedings against a Lloyd’s syndicate, which had elected not to participate in the foreign proceedings. On appeal, the syndicate argued that England’s reciprocity act did not apply to foreign judgments made in insolvency proceedings, and that England’s insolvency act, which recognizes Australian courts, should be interpreted as strictly permitting only Australian choice of law, rather than the enforcement of Australian judgments.

A number of activities of potential significance have occurred in the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act:

Surplus Lines Regulation:

Everest Reinsurance Company intervened in the liquidation proceedings of Midland Insurance Company, and moved to have the anti-suit injunction vacated, in order to allow it to participate in the claims settlement process, and to interpose defenses. The trial court denied the motion, and Everest appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding Everest’s defenses were premature, as none of the relevant claims had yet been approved, and because adequate procedures existed for it to interpose defenses later in the process.