Since the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were made in order to implement the European Union’s Council Directive 80/987/EEC, there has been an ongoing debate on how regulation 8 (7) (the bankruptcy proceedings exception) should be interpreted. Fortunately, a recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has gone some way towards clarifying the issue.

The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.

The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.

Building services and maintenance contractor Rok was placed into administration in early November. Administrators from PWC are looking for a buyer for the self styled “nation’s local builder”. The move comes just weeks after the administration of its rival Connaught which led to 1,400 redundancies. Rok’s 3,800 employees will be understandably very concerned as will Rok’s customers/employers, many of whom are in the public sector.

What follows are some of the issues that need to be considered when a contractor, like Rok, goes into administration.

Building services and maintenance contractor Rok was placed into administration this week. Administrators from PWC are looking for a buyer for the self styled “nation’s local builder”. The move comes just weeks after the administration of its rival Connaught which led to 1,400 redundancies. Rok’s 3,800 employees will be understandably very concerned as will Rok’s customers/employers, many of whom are in the public sector.

In the recent judgment of Gray and others v G-T-P Group Limited, the High Court considered whether a charge fell within the scope of the Financial Collateral (No.2) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”) and would not therefore be void against a liquidator, despite not being registered with the Registrar of Companies.

Insolvency procedures involving companies are complex and generally take a long time to complete. There is plenty of jargon which adds to the confusion, whereas all that an unsecured creditor usually wants to know is how to make a claim for the monies owed to him by the company, to whom the claim should be made, how long it will take to decide the claim and whether there is a possibility of recovering any monies from a company which is obviously experiencing financial difficulties.

The underlying policy of the Insolvency Act 1986 is that all assets of an insolvent organisation must be made available for distribution amongst its creditors. However, the courts also have the power to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime. This long established common law principle known as the anti-deprivation principle has been used by the courts over the years to strike down contractual provisions which attempt to do just that. The principle has received an airing in two recent High Court decisions.

In the continuing uncertainty of the current economic climate, and with a tough financial regime introduced by the new government, landlords may still find themselves faced with an insolvent tenant.

The law has for years tried to grapple with the Gordian Knot between protecting a debtor’s assets for realisation and distribution to his creditors and protecting third parties who enter into transactions with the debtor after the bankruptcy process has been initiated, completely unaware of that process.

When people are burdened with debt, they will sometimes resort to underhand tactics to relieve themselves of the consequences. One of the most common strategies is for the debtor to dispose of an asset, which would otherwise be used to pay his or her debts, for less than its market value. In consequence, there is legislation to protect the position of the creditors, who are, unusually, described as ‘victims’ in the legislation.