The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois recently held that an Illinois mortgage is subject to avoidance in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) unless the mortgage contains among other things, (i) the amount of the debt, (ii) the maturity date of the debt, and (iii) the underlying interest rate. Richardson v. The Gifford State Bank (In re Crane), Adv. Pro. No. 11-9067 (Bankr. C.D. Ill.).
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.
In their study published in February's issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics, “Long-Run Impacts of Unions on Firms: New Evidence from Financial Markets, 1961–1999,” Princeton University Professor David Lee and University of California Professor Alexandre Mas estimated that an “average union effect on the equity value of the firm equivalent to $40,000 per unionized worker.” The professors noted that the loss was a combination of a transfer of wealth to workers and inefficiencies caused by the unions.
- Introduction
On Feb. 29, 2012, a Michigan citizens’ group opposed to the State of Michigan’s emergency financial manager law (officially entitled “Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act,” MCL §§ 141.1501 et seq. and referred to herein as the “Act”), filed petitions to place the issue of the Act’s rejection on the state ballot in November.
A proposed bill entitled the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act and recently introduced to the Senate for the State of Michigan would regulate the use and enforceability of certain loan covenants in non-recourse commercial transactions. Presumably, the bill, Senate Bill No. 992 introduced on Feb. 29, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Economic Development, is in reaction to a recent decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals finding a guarantor liable for a deficiency claim notwithstanding the non-recourse nature of the loan. See Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cherryland Mall Ltd.
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).
The Court of Appeal has held that a transfer on an administration cannot be caught by TUPE rules, unlike on insolvency proceedings. As such administrations will not be “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the exemption to TUPE.
What does this mean?
Businesses who purchase companies who have been placed into administration will take on the liability under TUPE for the company’s employees. Employees will transfer under TUPE and will be protected from transfer- connected dismissals.
What should employers do?
Limited liability is not complete protection for directors and they must carefully consider their actions and, indeed, failures to act in order to avoid “piercing the corporate veil”. Directors may be ordered to contribute to the assets of the company even where they have not acted dishonestly.