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:

What information does the insolvency administrator have to provide to creditors?

Introduction

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) in its decision of 17 February 2011 (IX ZR 131/10) has been dealing with the issue which – since the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbrauchen - MoMiG) came into effect – is being controversially discussed as to whether loans by family members (in particular the shareholder’s siblings, spouse and children) in insolvency proceedings will be given subordinate ranking.

The risks facing a lending bank if the borrower becomes insolvent are often twofold. Not only are outstanding repayments in jeopardy, but, in the case of debtor`s insolvency, there is also a risk of voidable preference (Insolvenzanfechtung), where the insolvency administrator may challenge repayments already received and loan collateral granted before the insolvency filing.

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.

The case of Hull v Campbell serves as a reminder of an outmoded debt recovery procedure that needs to be modernised.

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