An intervening bankruptcy will not defeat a charging order where the bankruptcy was entered into in an attempt to frustrate the charge.

Pre-pack sales continue to attract attention and create controversy. A pre-pack occurs when a deal is agreed for the sale of the business and assets of a struggling company prior to formal insolvency proceedings being instigated. The purchase is effected upon the appointment of the insolvency practitioner and the purchaser is very often a vehicle in which the directors/shareholders have a stake.

The purchase of off-site materials has always been an area fraught with risk for contractors and employers; even more so with the increasing threat of supplier insolvency.

This recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is one of the first to examine how the insolvency provisions in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) should apply and, in particular, the circumstances in which employment liabilities passed under TUPE to the buyer of the assets of an insolvent company.

Facts

This case involved a "pre-pack" administration.

Yesterday, Iceland’s Prime Minister announced that the government has decided not to bring suit against the UK authorities for the Freezing Order issued against Landsbanki by the UK authorities on October 8, 2008, on the basis of their Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act.

On December 29, the UK Treasury published a summary of responses to its consultation on its proposals to reform Part 7 of the UK Companies Act 1989 and related legislation. Part 7 of the Companies Act 1989 modifies the UK’s general insolvency law to provide systemic protection for recognized investment exchanges and recognized clearinghouses in the event of a default by one of their members  

The absence of an intention to put assets out of the reach of creditors will thwart applications under the Insolvency Act to set declarations of trust or transfers aside.

Repossession of a bankrupt's property will be ordered unless there are exceptional circumstances making such an order inappropriate.

In Brittain v Haghighat, the only asset in the bankrupt's estate was the family home. One of the bankrupt's children was severely disabled with quadriplegic cerebral palsy, requiring continuous care. The trustee applied for an order for possession under s336 and s337 Insolvency Act 1986.

Pensions and insolvency legislation uses the test in the Insolvency Act 1986 for assessing whether a person is ‘connected’ or ‘associated’ with another. This test is important because various statutory provisions use it, especially in limiting the persons whom the Pensions Regulator can make responsible for pension scheme deficits under the ‘moral hazard’ powers in the Pensions Act 2004. This briefing gives an outline of the statutory provisions and points to some difficult areas.  

Why is this relevant?  

Introduction

This Note deals with the potential liabilities under English Law of the directors and officers (secretary and managers) of a UK company in the event of its (potential) insolvency.  

Summary  

Directors - and, to a lesser extent, other officers of a company - face a number of areas of potential personal liability. Of most relevance is the liability of the directors for ‘wrongful trading’.