OTG v Barke1 is the most recent judgement by the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) on whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)  Regulations 2006 (known as 'TUPE') apply to sales by companies in administration under schedule B1 to the 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?  

Summary

Background to Re Permacell

Background

MF Global UK Limited In Special Administration

The Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) has confirmed that MF Global UK Limited (“MF Global UK”) has entered the Special Administration Regime created under the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (“Regulations”).¹ MF Global UK is the first investment bank to enter the Special Administration Regime. The decision to apply for special administration was initiated by the board of MF Global UK.

Introduction

The High Court1 in England has confirmed the validity under English law of contractual provisions common in structured finance transactions which subordinate payments to a swap counterparty in circumstances where the swap counterparty has defaulted on its obligations under the terms of the relevant swap agreement.

The Judgment

Parties

As COVID-19 related economic disruptions place unprecedented stress on cash flows, the risk of insolvency is a new and growing concern for many businesses. Against the backdrop of a decades-long growth in corporate debt, boards of directors are making decisions that have the potential for pitting the interests of creditors against the interests of equity shareholders.

This month we review the court's view on open ended suspension of discharge from bankruptcy and the difficulty of 'substituting' a defendant in proceedings where the relevant limitation period has expired:

Suspension of discharge from bankruptcy should not be open ended

The High Court has held that only in the most serious cases of non-co-operation should a discharge from bankruptcy be suspended otherwise than on a specified period or condition basis.

The threat of insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor can greatly assist a creditor's primary objective of getting paid, preferably in advance of everyone else. This is particularly so where the debtor is prevaricating but there is no genuine dispute that the sum in question is due and owing. Although the courts decry the use of the winding-up procedure as a means of debt collection, it is often a very effective tool.

Consider the following when faced with a corporate debtor who is refusing, without genuine reason, to settle its debts: