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

La Resolución de la Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado (RDGRN) de 19 de diciembre de 2018 (BOE 28 de enero) se pronuncia de nuevo sobre la extinción registral de sociedades sin patrimonio. En esta ocasión se admite la inscripción de una escritura de disolución y liquidación de una sociedad de responsabilidad limitada en la que el liquidador declaró que la sociedad carecía de activos y de acreedores, de conformidad con el balance aprobado unánimemente por los socios.

The amendment to art. 90(1)(6) of the Insolvency Act 22/2003 (abbrev. LCON) by the Public Sector (Legal Regime) Act 40/2015 was welcomed almost enthusiastically by most market agents. It was felt that the inconsistent treatment bestowed on pledges of future claims (hereinafter, ‘PFC’) would finally be a thing of the past. I myself am not altogether convinced that this is the case, being able to envisage more than one way an insolvency judge, averse to this type of security interests, can dampen the aforementioned enthusiasm by way of a not overly absurd interpretation of the new provision.

According to its Explanatory Notes, RD Act (Order in Council) 4/2014, of 7 March, adopting  urgent measures on business debt refinancing and restructuring, aims to facilitate the financial  repair and recovery of companies facing an economic crisis. To this end, a set of rules varying in  scope and significance have been laid down, which I here discuss with regards to the treatment  reserved to loans granted under refinancing agreements - as provided by the Spanish Insolvency  Act (IA) - and their signatory creditors.

Art. 172 IA determines  the  pronouncements the at-fault classification ruling must contain, judicial pronouncements that constitute true civil penalties.¹

Thus, after classifying the insolvency proceedings as at-fault, the people affected by the classification and the accomplices, on whom the orders will fall, have to be determined. Then, arts. 172 and 172 bis IA establish that the judgment must order:

1. The sale of productive units of a company subject to insolvency proceedings has become common practice in the Commercial Courts, especially those of Catalonia, which have the express support of the Directorate General for Industry of the Regional Government of Catalonia.

This procedural solution allows companies to continue as a going concern, ensuring the maintenance of jobs and avoiding the destruction of the business landscape.

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: