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

Seafood Shack Ltd v Alan Darlow [2019] EWHC 1567 (Ch)

A lease of restaurant premises was granted to a company that did not exist; there was no legal basis for correcting the lease, and the similarly-named company claiming rights was held to have none.

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

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:

On October 31, the MF Global enterprise collapsed into bankruptcy and a number of related insolvency proceedings. Amid allegations of improper commingling of customer accounts and rumors of misbegotten proprietary Eurobond trades, two unregulated entities – MF Global Finance USA Inc. and MF Global Holdings Ltd. (the Unregulated Debtors) – filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on October 31, 2011. Later the same day, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation filed a complaint in the U.S.

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.

On January 25, 2011, Lehman Brothers filed an amended version of its plan of liquidation (the Plan). Contrasted against its predecessor version, the Plan creates some winners and some losers in terms of the percentage of projected payouts to creditors of various Lehman entities. More important than the percentage distribution, however, may be the means by which the debtors seek to fix a creditor’s claim amount. With regard to claims based on derivatives contracts, Lehman proposes to take a novel – and for holders of those claims, potentially alarming – approach.

Introduction

Against the backdrop of the recent sheriff court decisions regarding the need to appoint a Court Reporter even in cases where the assets are insufficient to meet the IPs' fees, the Court of Session has taken an innovative approach to approving IP fees without the need to appoint a court reporter.

Background