BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc & others [2011] EWCA Civ 227

The Court of Appeal has allowed companies around the country to breathe a solvent sigh of relief, as it has held that the so-called “balance sheet” test of insolvency in s123(2) Insolvency Act 1996 is intended to apply where a company has reached a “point of no return” rather than being used as a “mechanistic, even artificial, reason for permitting a creditor to present a petition to wind up a company”.  

In a decision that departs from an earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling, the EAT has ruled in OTG Ltd v Barke and others that normal TUPE principles always apply to administrations, including pre-pack administrations, because an administration does not constitute “bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings…instituted with a view to liquidation of the assets of the transferor”. This means that employees do automatically transfer to the buyer in an administration situation and thus are protected against unfair dismissal.

The EAT's judgment

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.

There are essentially three types of insolvency proceeding: liquidation, receivership and administration. Liquidators realise and distribute a company’s assets before dissolving the company. Receivers usually realise certain secured assets to repay certain debts, before appointing a liquidator. However, an administrator’s first objective is to rescue the company as a going concern. It is only if this is not practicable that the administrator can realise and distribute a company’s assets.

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 has published its policy, which came into effect on 1 December 2010, on realising a bankrupt's principal residence where the Official Receiver (OR) is appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.

The policy provides that the OR will not take any steps to market the bankrupt's interest in the property for a period of two years and three months from the date of the bankruptcy order. However, the OR can accept any unsolicited offer in relation to the property if it is in the best interest of creditors. After the expiry of the two years and three months:

The administrator who is running off the business of English (re)insurer GLOBAL General & Reinsurance Company Ltd filed a petition under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code with the federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan yesterday. The petition asks for the court's assistance with the last of four Schemes of Arrangement for GLOBAL, which was sanctioned by the High Court of Justice for England & Wales on January 28, 2011.

From 1 January 2011 the Insolvency Service has put the following changes into effect:

The Official Receiver (OR), as trustee of the bankruptcy estate, will no longer dispose of a bankrupt’s interest in a family home until two years and three months after the bankruptcy order is made, except if an offer is received which is in the creditors’ interests to accept.

At two years and three months a review will begin. In cases where the bankrupt’s interest in the property is valued at less than £1,000, steps will be taken to revest the property interest in the bankrupt.

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").