In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.

The courts and FOS are now headed down very different paths in their approach to credit crunch losses suffered by clients of regulated firms. While FOS has all but abandoned the general law of causation in its approach to cases of consumer detriment, we have observed how the courts have held again and again that the general law of causation applies to mis-selling claims.

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.

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)).

Clarification on the jurisdiction of the English courts to sanction schemes of arrangement for overseas companies

Providing further evidence that schemes of arrangement (“schemes”) are an increasingly useful tool in the restructuring of overseas companies, on 20 January 2012, the High Court sanctioned a scheme proposed by PrimaCom Holding GmbH (“PrimaCom”), a German incorporated company, with its centre of main interests (or “COMI”) in Germany and whose affected creditors were domiciled outside the UK.

As the economic clouds continue to darken and the threat of a double-dip recession increases, concern about exposure to unsecured bad debts will inevitably dominate the agenda of many companies. If the worst happens and a significant bad debt is incurred, many creditors are reluctant to review the possibilities afforded to them by the Insolvency Act 1986 and seek the solace of VAT bad debt relief. This is often the case even where it is suspected that the directors of the insolvent company have been culpable of misconduct.

In an earlier blog I touched upon the belief which exists within certain parts of the market that there is still a way to go in the re-pricing of non-prime assets. Some commentators are predicting that this re-pricing will take place through 2012 and into 2013, the hope being that we will start to see greater activity in the secondary market in the second half of next year.

Pritchard Stockbrokers Ltd has become the second firm to enter into the investment firms Special Administration Regime. FSA stopped the firm carrying out its business on 10 February because of serious concerns about the business and how the firm was handling investors’ money. WH Ireland has taken over the assets belonging to most of the firms’ customers. (Source: Stockbroker Goes Into Special Administration)

Where there is no evidence of lack of authority in placing orders which have not been paid, the court refused to allow an injunction to restrain a winding-up petition.

In the matter of A company (2012) (the company), a creditor had issued a statutory demand against it in relation to invoices for advertising placed with it by the company's sales and marketing manager (M) that were unpaid. The company argued that those orders had been placed without its authority and M admitted that she had exceeded her authority in so placing them.

USDAW v WW Realisation 1 Limited (in Liquidation)

You probably wouldn't recognise it from the case name but this case results from the closure of the much loved and sorely missed Woolworths.

Employers are obliged to carry out collective consultation with appropriate representatives when proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees from an establishment over a 90-day period: the length of the consultation period is dependent on the number of employees being dismissed.