In Rubin v Coote [2011] EWCA Civ 106 (09 February 2011) the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a liquidator to settle litigation against a former director of a company notwithstanding the opposition of the company’s creditors.

It is an age old problem for creditors who are faced with debtors who ask for more time to pay their debts. The Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 14.9 and 14.10 allow for a debtor, following the admission of their debt, to request time to pay. It is open for a claimant to choose whether or not to accept a defendant’s proposals; if the claimant does not accept the defendant’s proposals, it is for the court to determine the time and rate of payment. The court’s discretion conferred by CPR 14.10 to extend time for payment has not, until now, been examined.

In circumstances where a debtor lacks mental capacity to deal with a statutory demand and subsequent bankruptcy petition, the court will rescind or annul a bankruptcy order.

In previous issues of TransAtlantic, we reported that the UK Pensions Regulator had issued contribution notices (CNs) and financial support directions (FSDs) against insolvent companies in the Nortel and Lehman Brothers groups. Click here for the June story on Nortel (see page 5); click here for the November story on Lehman (see page 7).

In BNY Corporate Trustee Service v Eurosail UK1, the Court of Appeal rejected a “mechanical” definition of balance sheet insolvency.

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”.  

Background

Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides two main tests of when a company is insolvent:

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled in five conjoined appeals that TUPE applies in all administrations, since they constitute ”relevant insolvency proceedings” and not ”liquidation proceedings”. This will be the case even in “pre-pack” administrations, where a business is placed into administration but immediately sold to a purchaser who has been lined up to buy the business beforehand.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal (the “CA”) in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 227 was handed down on 7 March 2011.

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.