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

Eastman Kodak is in the process of emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States. A key part of the process has been the settlement of the $2.8 billion claim by Eastman Kodak’s UK subsidiary pension fund, the Kodak Pension Plan. This has involved the sale of 2 businesses to the Kodak Pension Plan for a total of $325 million in return for a discharge from liability to the Plan. These businesses were valued at $650 million.

The procedure of composition with creditors aimed at business continuity (“concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale”, provided by art. 186-bis of the Bankruptcy Law) has a major impact on the rules governing public contracts, above all with reference to the requirements requested both for the participation of economic operators in the public tender procedures and for their capacity to enter into agreements with public entities.

Practitioners should be aware that recent comment from a number of the insolvency judges at the Court of Session suggests that the Court is likely to be taking a more interventionist approach to a number of insolvency applications and, as a result, practitioners may wish to review the approach taken to these applications in administration and liquidation cases.

In this August edition of the Pensions E-Bulletin, we look at the Pensions Regulator’s statement on its approach to financial support directions (FSDs) in insolvency situations, the shortened guidance on incentive exercises issued by Pensions Regulator following the publication of the industry code of good practice as well as noting the updated guidance on multi-employer scheme departures and the consultation by the Takeover Panel on proposals relating to pension scheme trustees. 

FSDs and insolvency – the Regulator’s statement

In the recent English case of Pick v Chief Land Registrar [2011] EWHC 206(Ch), the High Court held that a buyer was entitled to be registered at the Land Registry as the registered proprietor of a property sold by a bankrupt. This was the case, even though the buyer allowed the priority period in which to effect registration to lapse, and the entry of a bankruptcy restriction was made on the title after the date of the transfer, but before the application for registration.

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.