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”.
In the case of B v IB [2013] EWHC 3755 (Fam) the High Court has determined the status of an application made under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 issued during divorce proceedings where the husband had died during the process and the wife intended to commence new proceedings under s.10 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Background
When a creditor to a company believes that that company is insolvent, it is open to that creditor to present a Petition for the compulsory liquidation of that company. Section 135(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 allows the creditor, on submitting a Petition for the winding up of a company, to apply for a provisional liquidator to be appointed.
The case held that a judge was right to strike out a claim brought by a liquidator under sections 238 and 241 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the transactions alleged to have been made at an undervalue were not transactions entered into by the company.
Comment
On 13 December 2013, the Court of Session ruled that the liquidators of The Scottish Coal Company Limited (SCC) were not able to disclaim ownership of certain open-cast mines and the environmental permits which were connected with the operation of those mines. This ruling followed an appeal by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), and overturns the previous decision of 11 July 2013, in which it had been ruled that the liquidators were entitled to disclaim this property.
The Court of Appeal gave judgment today (15 November 2013) in favour of licensed insolvency practitioner Andrew Hosking (D), unanimously upholding a strike out judgment of Peter Smith J made on 22 February 2013.
Stephen Hunt, liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Limited (“OCP”), had sued D and 8 other defendants. His claim against D was brought pursuant to sections 238 and 241 Insolvency Act 1986. He alleged that D had received or benefited from payments made by OCP which constituted transactions at an undervalue.
The changes
Since 29 December 1986, the Insolvency Act 1986, as amended by 23 subsequent statutory instruments, has governed the way in which insolvency practitioners, lawyers, creditors, debtors and others dealing with insolvency issues, have addressed procedures such as bankruptcy, administration, liquidation and voluntary liquidation.
Lending to a foreign company? If you choose English law to govern your facility documents and provide for the English court to have exclusive jurisdiction, an English scheme may be a viable means of restructuring the debt later, if the need arises.
The High Court has confirmed that all rights relating to the control of data belonging to, or being controlled by, a company at the time it entered into liquidation remain vested in the company at and following its liquidation. Liquidators are therefore not personally liable for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of this data as they will be viewed as agents acting for the company rather than as 'data controllers'.
In our December 2010 and April 2011 insolvency updates, we reported on the UK High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail. The issue before both Courts was whether Eurosail was insolvent by virtue of being unable to pay its debts under the balance sheet limb of the solvency test in section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that Eurosail was solvent, noting that it had not reached the "point of no return".