The much awaited EAT decision inOTG Ltd v Barke and others (formerlyOlds v Late Editions Ltd) was delivered on 16 February. As expected, the EAT has taken the view that an administration cannot amount to “bankruptcy” or “analogous insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of Regulation 8(7) of TUPE. So, on a sale by an administrator (even in a pre-pack administration) TUPE will apply.

In more detail

The full force of TUPE is relaxed in relation to insolvent transfers as follows:

The Insolvency Service ("IS") has published a consultation on proposed reform to the regulation of insolvency practitioners. The consultation responds to various recommendations made last year by the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") in their study entitled, "The Market for Corporate Insolvency Practitioners".

Section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 has the potential to mean that, as a result of corporate restructuring (including on employee and TUPE transfers), an employer that participates in a defined benefit occupational pension scheme could have to make a one-off payment (a debt) to the scheme. The debt reflects the difference between the scheme funds that are available and the estimated cost of securing all scheme benefits in the form of annuity policies.

In a decision that demonstrates a considerable degree of common sense, Lord Glennie has confirmed that in certain liquidations one can dispense with the usual requirement for a Reporter to be appointed to consider a liquidator's accounts. The decision forms part of an Opinion issued by Lord Glennie in relation to the winding-up of Park Gardens Investments Limited ("the Company").

Since 2003, the procedure for appointing administrators has largely consisted of filing simple forms with a court. What could be easier? A recent case has, however, highlighted the dangers of making errors in the filing process and serves as a timely warning to everyone involved in insolvency and security enforcement work.

In Kaupthing Capital Partners II Master LP Inc, the English courts ruled that an appointment of administrators was invalid as the incorrect form had been used for the appointment.

According to a recent judgment in the English High Court, Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") issued by the Pensions Regulator ("the Regulator") against companies in administration are to be treated as expenses of the administration. This means that they are to rank ahead of preferential and unsecured creditors and, indeed, perhaps ahead of the remuneration of the administrators themselves.

The recent sale of the bulk of Connaught's failed social housing group has received a lot of positive press attention of late, due largely to the number of jobs the deal is reported to have saved.

The sale appears to have occurred within days of Connaught going into administration. While there has been no suggestion that the deal was effected as a "pre-pack", the speed with which the sale was carried out echoes the most prominent feature of true pre-pack deals.

In our e-update of 20 January 2010, we looked at a decision of the English courts from December 2009 in which it was decided that, in England, the Administrators of a tenant company are bound to account to the landlord of premises for rent due in relation to the period during which those premises are being used in connection with the administration, and that the rent is to be paid as an expense of the administration.

On 21 May 2010, Justice Floyd handed down his judgment in Bloomsbury International Ltd (in administration) v Mark Alan Holyoake.1 The case sheds light on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a cross-undertaking provided by administrators on behalf of an insolvent company to be fortifi ed by a bank guarantee.

Facts

The case of Poulton v Ministry of Justice was decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of last month. The Court decided that a trustee in bankruptcy was left without a remedy against the Court Service when a bankrupt's estate suffered loss following an oversight by the Court Service to notify the Land Registry that a bankruptcy petition had been presented (as it is required to do by rule 6.13 of the Insolvency Rules 1986).

The background