The EAT has held that employees of a business will transfer to the buyer of that business, even where the business is in administration, as long as there has been a 'relevant transfer'.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail–UK 2007–3BL Plc and others, the Court of Appeal ruled on the interpretation of the so-called "balance-sheet" test of insolvency under section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. This is essentially that a company is deemed unable to pay its debts if the value of its assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities. This appears to be the first reported case on the interpretation of the balance-sheet test of insolvency.

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

Where a company goes into administration and the administrators sell on part or all of the business the question arises whether accrued employee liabilities will pass over to the buyer, who may inherit an unexpected list of old debts.

Regulation 8(7) of TUPE 2006 attempted to mitigate the effect of TUPE in the case of certain insolvencies. Mirroring the wording in the Acquired Rights Directive, it provides that contracts of assigned employees (with their accrued liabilities) will not pass to the buyer where the transferor  

Ever since the establishment of the U.K. Pensions Regulator (the "Regulator") by the U.K. Pensions Act 2004 (the "Act"), the Regulator's exercise of its authority has been of major importance to the U.K.'s restructuring and rescue business. The first judicial review of the Regulator's powers, however, hints that some of the procedures it has adopted may be curbed in the future.

The Pensions Regulator and the Restructuring Environment

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:

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.

Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions

Last week the Employment Appeal Tribunal 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.