The long awaited judgment in The Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v. Football League Limited, on the so called “football creditors’ rule” (the “Rule”) has been given.

This article only concerns itself with the issue of whether the Rule was or was not considered void on the grounds that it was contrary to the pari passu principle and the anti-deprivation rule and not on the fairness of the Rule itself.

BESTrustees v Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander [2012] EWHC 629 (Ch) (High Court Chancery Division 16 March 2012)

Background

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.

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.

Seventh Circuit reverses district court decision that discretionary beneficiary lacked standing to bring surcharge claim for $200 million in investment losses from investment concentration.

Forum selection clause in an investment management agreement is valid and enforceable.

Senator Charles Grassley has sent a letter to the Justice Department asking how Justice has enforced “key employee retention plans” (KERPs) under 503(c) of the U.S.

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)).