The Housing and Planning Act changes what happens to insolvent housing associations, says Séamas Gray in an article for Inside Housing.

Traditionally, when a company becomes insolvent, it enters one of several types of insolvency processes and its assets are typically sold to the highest bidder to raise as much money as possible to distribute to the company’s creditors.

In relation to a housing association, this might well mean a sale outside the regulated sector with the knock-on effect of an immediate reduction in available social housing.

In judgment 297/2016 of September 22, 2016, by Commercial Court No. 6 of Madrid, the court rejects the appeal filed by a dissenting entity affected by a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement. The appeal argued the existence of a disproportionate sacrifice due to the standstill of the notarial enforcement of a pledge on shares already executed.

In its judgment 500/2016 of July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court interprets article 62.4 of the Insolvency Act, regulating the effects of contract resolution during insolvency:

If an agency agreement is resolved due to the agent being declared insolvent, the business owner must compensate the agent for clientele if the requirements under the Agency Act are met (the agent brought new clients or clearly increased transactions with existing clients, and the previous activity is still beneficial for the business owner). 

In its writ dated February 2, 2016, the First Instance Civil Court No. 38 of Barcelona raised a preliminary issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that writ, it requested the EU court to determine whether the business practice of assigning or buying credits without offering consumers the possibility to settle the debt by paying the assignee the outstanding amount is in line with EU law.

In an article for the LexisNexis ‘On the edge’ series of briefings, which highlight areas of legislation that may not fall with the everyday work of insolvency practitioners, Pat Saini and Séamas Gray offer guidance on immigration law.

Why is immigration law relevant to insolvency practitioners and their staff?

Legislation applicable generally

The senior board members (other than Sir Philip Green) are next to face the committees comprising Lord Grabiner, non-executive chairman of Traveta Investments Limited and Traveta Investments (No 2) Limited; Ian Grabiner, CEO of Arcadia; Paul Budge, FD of Arcadia and former BHS board member; Gillian Hague, group financial controller of Arcadia; and Chris Harris, group property director for Arcadia. This group of individuals (other than Lord Grabiner and Ian Grabiner) together with Sir Philip Green comprised the Traveta board’s sub-group responsible for negotiating the sale of BHS.

The adviser group 2 session on Monday 23 May comprised Owen Clay, corporate lawyer for Arcadia and Traveta (Linklaters); Steve Denison, auditor of Traveta and its subsidiaries, including BHS (PwC); and Anthony Gutman, ‘informal’ adviser to the Arcadia Group (Goldman Sachs).

The questioning focused on the solvency position of BHS at the time of the acquisition, the level of due diligence undertaken on the eventual acquirer (Retail Acquisitions Ltd) and the recognition of the pensions deficit in the deal negotiation.

Monday 23 May saw the turn of the advisers. This update concentrates on what we will call “adviser group 1” comprising Emma King, the trustees pension lawyer (Eversheds); David Clarke, covenants adviser to the trustees (KPMG); Tony Clare, restructuring pensions adviser to Taveta Investments Limited, the previous owner of BHS (Deloitte); Ian Greenstreet, pension lawyer to Taveta Investments Limited (Nabarro); and Richard Cousins, the independent actuary to the Taveta group (PWC).

En los años de mayor crisis económica se dispararon las compraventas de unidades productivas autónomas en el marco de procedimientos concursales. La Ley Concursal regulaba estas compraventas permitiendo a los adjudicatarios reflotar un negocio minorando las cargas acumuladas hasta el momento del concurso.Uno de los debates en estas situaciones es el alcance de la responsabilidad de la empresa adjudicataria sobre las obligaciones laborales de los trabajadores afectos a la unidad productiva autónoma.