At the end of February 2008 new rules were introduced aimed at tightening the existing measures to combat illegal working, by making it more difficult for people to exceed any permission granted to stay in Great Britain or continue working in breach of the conditions imposed on them by the immigration authorities and to make it easier for employers to ascertain whether it is legal for them to engage any prospective employee.

Prevention of illegal working

Background

Attorneys who advise a distressed company usually work very closely with members of the board of directors. A recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas provides a cautionary reminder to such attorneys not to lose sight of the fact that, notwithstanding that the company acts through its board, the attorneys’ duties are to the company and not to the individual board members. And, losing focus on the source of the attorneys’ duties may result in exposure to significant liability.

This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

Understanding the rights of your employees in redundancy is an important part of any insolvency procedure. Here we look at what happens during various administration and liquidation processes, plus the way in which redundancy entitlement is calculated.

Staff redundancy following liquidation

The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently clarified the applicable requirements for post-petition severance payments to a debtor’s former officers. In the case of In re: Forum Health, et al.1, the debtor sought authorization from the Court to make a severance payment in the amount of $18,126.00 to its former Chief Executive Officer. The Trustee objected, asserting that the debtor’s motion was not based on a program that was generally applicable to all full-time employees as required by 11 U.S.C. § 503(c)(2)(A).

In re Exide Technologies, 607 F3d 957 (3rd Cir June 1, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whalen (In re Enron Corp.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy payment of an employment bonus one day before it became due was “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made” for purposes of determining whether section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code made the payment avoidable as a preferential transfer.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, applying Colorado law, has denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment and granted in part motions for partial summary judgment by the policyholder's former CEO and a bankruptcy trustee as assignee of the policyholder's former directors. Genesis Ins. Co. v. Crowley, 2007 WL 1832039 (D. Colo. June 25, 2007).

The ability of a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) or bankruptcy trustee to assume or reject unexpired leases or contracts that are “executory” as of the bankruptcy filing date is one of the most important entitlements created by the Bankruptcy Code. It allows a DIP to rid itself of onerous contracts and to preserve contracts that can either benefit its reorganized business or be assigned to generate value for the bankruptcy estate and/or fund distributions to creditors under a chapter 11 plan.