The TUPE Regulations contain some provisions designed to make struggling businesses more attractive to prospective purchasers. TUPE will not apply to transfer employees, and dismissals will not be automatically unfair, where insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to liquidation of assets (Regulation 8(7)). However, TUPE will apply to insolvency proceedings which do not aim to liquidate assets, and employees will have unfair dismissal protection (Regulation 8(8)).

Written Ministerial statement

Edward Davey, Minister for Employment relations, consumers and postal affairs; Department for Business, innovation and skills

In March 2011 I announced that we would be taking steps to improve the transparency and confidence of pre-pack sales in insolvency.  We subsequently consulted interested parties on measures targeted at the sales of assets in insolvent companies where these are sold to connected parties (such as the directors or their close associates).

 The Court of Appeal has held that a transfer on an administration cannot be caught by TUPE rules, unlike on insolvency proceedings. As such administrations will not be “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the exemption to TUPE.

What does this mean?

Businesses who purchase companies who have been placed into administration will take on the liability under TUPE for the company’s employees. Employees will transfer under TUPE and  will be protected from transfer- connected dismissals.

What should employers do?

The Belgian Constitutional Court declared netting arrangements in insolvency proceedings, which are explicitly allowed under the Belgian Financial Collateral Law of 15 December 2004, unconstitutional where such netting arrangements apply to non-merchants. Despite the numerous criticisms on this decision, a legislative proposal was drafted on 13 September 2011 in order to explicitly exclude non-merchants from the application of the Belgian Financial Collateral Law.

On 22 September 2011, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine No. 3795-VI “On Amendments to Several Legislative Acts of Ukraine regarding the Regulation of Legal Relations between Creditors and Receivers of Financial Services” (the “Law”). The Law, among other changes, introduced amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Restoring Debtor’s Solvency or Recognising it Bankrupt”, No. 2343-XII, dated 14 May 1992, as amended (the “Bankruptcy Law”).

On 22 September 2011, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted Law of Ukraine No. 3795-VI “On Amendments to Several Legislative Acts of Ukraine regarding Regulation of Legal Relations between Creditors and Receivers of Financial Services” (the “Law”). The Law became effective on 16 October 2011. Although the positive impact of certain amendments is rather ambiguous at this stage, the Law is likely to reduce risks in the financial system.

The major amendments envisaged by the Law cover the following key areas:

Loans and security

Every business must manage risk. Whenever such risk turns into reality, the consequences must be accepted and declared for the well being of the wider economic environment. The purpose of this article is to analyse the legal framework of the commencement of insolvency proceedings at a debtor’s request and the sanctions applicable when such a framework is surpassed.

The collection of the insolvency estate is one of the important phases of insolvency proceedings. The Bulgarian Commerce Act (Issue No. 48 dated 18 June 1991, as amended) (the “Act”) provides certain tools to facilitate the collection of funds and other assets in order to “maximise” the insolvency estate. One such tool is the ability of the insolvency administrator, or the creditors to the insolvency estate, to challenge the validity of acts and transactions performed by the insolvent company after the insolvency trigger date.

Following last edition’s article on the insolvency proceedings of the market-leading Czech betting company, we would like to provide an update on the progress of the company’s insolvency proceedings.

On August 26, 2011 the Italian Supreme Court issued the decision no. 32899 stating that shareholders of a company will commit an offence if they unreasonably provide funds to a company in distress, rather than proceeding with the immediate liquidation of the company.