The US Court has approved a bankruptcy settlement under which a US-listed parent company is liable for the buy-out deficits in its UK subsidiary's pension schemes. Key to the court's considerations was the issue of Financial Support Directions (FSDs) by the UK Pensions Regulator against the US parent company.

The court decided that:

With the economy in poor shape and personal debt still at high levels, the outlook is less than rosy for people who are facing insolvency. Even after the changes made by the Enterprise Act 2002, bankruptcy is still a difficult experience. This is especially true where the family home is the main asset of the bankrupt’s estate.

The trustee in bankruptcy will normally seek a possession order over the property so that it can be sold to satisfy the claims of creditors.

When deciding whether the possession order is to be granted, the court is obliged to consider:

In Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decided that an employee of a business in administration was unable to have the protection afforded to employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) when the business in which he was employed was transferred and continued as a going concern with the transferee.

The FSMT has handed down its decision in the case of Asgar Ali Ravjani (trading as Astrad Finance) v Financial Services Authority, which involved the failure to disclose a discharged bankruptcy to the FSA.

Introduction

The filing on 15 September 2008 for Chapter 11 protection under US bankruptcy laws by the Lehman Brothers ultimate parent company, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., led to several UK-based entities of the Lehman Group entering administration.

The court will not assist a former bankrupt to enforce his interests under an unlawful trust where the purpose of the trust initially had been to deprive the trustee in bankruptcy of the bankrupt's interest.

On June 26, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) announced that it obtained a bankruptcy order against Samuel Nathan Kahn who controlled the affairs of Chesteroak Limited (Chesteroak) and Bingen Investments Limited (Bingen). Chesteroak and Bingen were two UK-based companies that helped illegal offshore boiler rooms sell shares to investors.

When a person is unable to pursue a claim against someone who has been made bankrupt on account of the bankruptcy having been discharged, it may still be possible to pursue the claim against the bankrupt’s insurers, following a recent ruling.

The case involved 12 claims for breach of trust against nine solicitors and a Mr Dixit Shah. It was brought by the Law Society and 19 of the various clients of the solicitors.

A company went into administration and company voluntary arrangements were entered into to effect a rescue of viable parts of the group. As part of that process, a valuation of the liabilities of the companies as at 1 October 2001 was required. They included claims arising under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. However, those debts were not triggered until July 2004 and the scheme actuary for did not sign the section 75 certificates and apportion shares amongst the various companies until March 2006.

It is clear from the recent collapse of Bear Stearns that the real impact of the credit crunch is now being felt. With this in mind, how can landlords and tenants of commercial properties prepare themselves for a potential rise in the number of corporate insolvencies?

Landlords’ remedies – think outside the box

The landlord of a commercial property faced with an insolvent tenant will usually have two concerns: