The United Kingdom has voted to leave the EU. Before the referendum, we considered in detail the potential impact of Brexit in the context of restructuring and insolvency. In particular we highlighted that Brexit could have an impact on cross-border restructuring/insolvency given the UK is currently viewed as a popular jurisdiction for implementing complex cross-border restructurings and insolvencies in light the regimes being widely regarded as well established, flexible and creditor friendly.

Le 17 février 2015, Groupe Bikini Village inc. dépose un avis d’intention de faire une proposition auprès de ses créanciers conformément  à l’article 50.4 LFI.

Le 5 mars 2015, l’entreprise présente au tribunal une requête non-contestée pour émission d’une ordonnance accordant une charge administrative, une charge en faveur des dirigeants et des administrateurs et enfin une charge garantissant un plan de rétention des employés clés.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), in the case of Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v McDonagh, has had to consider what the “appropriate date” is for the purposes of employees claiming arrears of salary and holiday pay from the National Insurance Fund, in circumstances where a voluntary insolvency procedure is followed by a compulsory insolvency procedure.

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 EAT has confirmed that it is not necessary for the eventual transferee to have been identified in order for an employee, dismissed in the run up to a transfer, to claim automatic unfair dismissal by reason of a relevant transfer under TUPE (Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine & another).

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.

Administrators will note with concern the decision of the East London Employment Tribunal in Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and Others, which suggests that administrators can be held to be personally liable for the discrimination of employees of the business in administration.

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 259, on appeal from (2009) 319 D.L.R. (4th) 735 (BCCA)

The union on behalf of the unionized employees of Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd., the bankrupt employer, had applied to the B.C.S.C. for directions and obtained a decision of that Court that the “wages” protected under the WEPPA “superpriority” for unpaid employees included amounts paid by the employer to third parties on behalf of the employees.

As we previously wrote about (Volume 1, Issue 3, December 2008), the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) came into force on July 7, 2008 as part of a comprehensive reform package to the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act (“BIA”). WEPPA was designed to protect the wages of employees terminated as a result of a bankruptcy or receivership. Employees could now claim up to $3,000 worth of wages earned in the six months immediately preceding the bankruptcy or receivership, as well as a $2,000 super priority claim on all current assets of their employer.

Caisse populaire Desjardins de l’Est de Drummond v. Canada, 2009 SCC 29 (Can LII) (S.C.C.); on appeal from 2006 FCA 366 (Can LII)

The Caisse granted Camvrac a line of credit of up to $297,000. Camvrac deposited $200,000 with the Caisse subject to a “Security Given Through Savings” agreement (the “Savings Agreement”) and agreed:

(i) to have the $200,000 on deposit as long as the line of credit was outstanding; and