In BNY Corporate Trustee Service v Eurosail UK1, the Court of Appeal rejected a “mechanical” definition of balance sheet insolvency.

There remains much economic uncertainty ahead and it seems that insolvency practices are likely to continue to remain important drivers in accountancy firms. However, insolvency practitioners are facing increased regulation and public scrutiny. They need to remain on top of their game to navigate safely through stormy waters, as Ross Goodrich reports.

Background

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:

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

A temporary Scheme was introduced in March 2009

The purpose of the temporary Scheme is to ensure that former employees of insolvent businesses receive a reasonable amount of compensation promptly, where they are owed money by their former employers.  

In a White Paper published on 03 December 2009 the States proposed to introduce a permanent Scheme. The deadline for respondents to submit their views was Friday 05 February 2010

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

In Griffi n v UHY Hacker Young & Partners1 the court dismissed an application for summary judgment on the basis of the ex turpi causa (or illegality) defence, and made a number of observations as to uncertainties in the law as it stands.

In the matter of a Representation by Computer Patent Annuities Holdings Limited and in the matter of Part 18A of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 [2010]JRC021

Introduction

This case, heard by the Royal Court in Jersey, involved the approval of a scheme of arrangement pursuant to Article 125 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the "Companies Law"), together with the confirmation of a reduction of share capital.

Background

In the matter of Centurion Management Services Limited and Article 155 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 [2009]JRC227

Introduction

This judgment of the Royal Court in Jersey illustrates circumstances in which the court has been prepared to exercise its jurisdiction to order that a company be wound up on the grounds that it is just and equitable so to do.

In the present fi nancial climate, customers are increasingly asking for business critical software or other assets to be transferred to the customer should the supplier become insolvent, for the legitimate reason that the customer needs security of supply. Two recent Court of Appeal cases remind us that customers who outsource to and contract with potentially vulnerable service providers need to take account of the “anti-deprivation principle” when doing this.