In a much anticipated judgment the Court of Appeal has clarified the position regarding the anti-deprivation rule.

Last year, in the case of Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, the EAT suggested that, if an administrator has been appointed with a view to liquidating a transferor company, this fell within the exception provided by TUPE Regulation 8(7) (which provides that where there are insolvency proceedings instituted with a view to liquidation, the key employee protections afforded under TUPE do not apply). This ran contrary to government guidance.

The first appeal ruling from the newly formed UK Supreme Court concerned the construction of a clause setting out the distribution of assets in a collapsed structured investment vehicle (“SIV”). For the creditors attempting to salvage the remains of the SIV, and onlookers in similar situations, the judicial process has been a rollercoaster ride which has left them reeling.

In a judgment handed down last week, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice Blackburne (previously reported here) that the English courts have no jurisdiction to sanction the proposed scheme of arrangement for Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) insofar as it purports to extinguish rights of beneficiaries under trusts.

In a recent case in the Court of Appeal, the Court ruled that information on a web page under the heading ‘about us’, that contained advice to users to obtain further information, was sufficient to absolve a trade organisation from its ‘guarantee’ responsibilities.

Customers who use members of the Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association (SPATA) can claim redress in the event that a member becomes insolvent. However, the redress applies only where the membership is a full membership, not an associate membership.

The Court of Appeal has heard the appeal in Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd. Although its written judgment has not yet been published, it appears that it heard an appeal only on a narrow point of employment law and did not give definitive guidance on the application of the insolvency provisions in the TUPE Regulations which had been the principal issue in the EAT.

To avoid an asset reverting to a bankrupt after the end of his period of bankruptcy, the asset must be realised. An assignment of a beneficial interest for a future price does not amount to a realisation.

In Josef Syska (Administrator of Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) and Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) v Vivendi Universal SA & Others [2009] EWCA Civ 677 the main question to be decided by the Court of Appeal was whether, when an arbitration is proceeding in one Member State of the European Union, in this case the UK, and one of the parties to the arbitration becomes insolvent in another Member State, in this case Poland, the consequences of that insolvency, in so far as they affect the arbitration, are to be determined by the law of the Member State where the insolvency procee

This is the third of a series of four e-bulletins in relation to administrations and company voluntary arrangements (CVAs).

An employment appeal tribunal has ruled that TUPE does not apply to all sales by administrators. On this view, whether TUPE applies will depend on the objectives of the administrator when appointed. In this case it was clear from the outset that continuing to trade was not viable and an immediate sale of the company’s assets was required to secure the best outcome for creditors. That put the administration in the category of “terminal” insolvency proceedings, for which a complete exemption from TUPE applies.