The Insolvency Service has recently published a helpful guide about the restrictions on the re-use of a name previously used by a company, which has gone into liquidation. Directors of companies in insolvent liquidation need to take special care, as the restriction applies to them personally and contravention is a criminal offence. The restriction lasts for five years from the date of liquidation and, save in limited circumstances, a director is not allowed to be a director of or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a limited company that uses a "prohibited name".

In the current economic climate, brokers will find the decision of the High Court in Euroption Strategic Fund Limited v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banker AB[2012] EWHC 584 (Comm) of considerable interest, since it considers the duties of a broker who is conducting a close out and liquidating the position of a client who is in a state of default, in this case for failure to meet margin requirements.   

The Court ruled that:

In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.

The TUPE Regulations contain some provisions designed to make struggling businesses more attractive to prospective purchasers. TUPE will not apply to transfer employees, and dismissals will not be automatically unfair, where insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to liquidation of assets (Regulation 8(7)). However, TUPE will apply to insolvency proceedings which do not aim to liquidate assets, and employees will have unfair dismissal protection (Regulation 8(8)).

The Court of Appeal has issued further guidance on the thorny issue of the application of the TUPE Regulations to administration proceedings.  While many practitioners will feel that the decisions are not helpful in trying to achieve business sales in what is already a challenging market, insolvency practitioners (IPs) nonetheless need to be aware of the clarity that these cases have brought. The key points to note are:

USDAW and others v WW Realisation 1 Limited (in Liquidation) and another ET 3201156/2010

This case concerns the recent news about the protective award made against Woolworths PLC.  Woolworths which employed over 27,000 employees in 814 stores went into administration at the end of November 2008.  Joint administrators were appointed and it went into liquidation.

Today (20th December) the Court of Appeal has clarified how TUPE applies when a business is sold after administration proceedings are instituted. It has decided that employees transfer to the new owner of the business, and are protected from transfer-related dismissals, thereby putting to rest more than two years of legal uncertainty following conflicting decisions from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Limited liability is not complete protection for directors and they must carefully consider their actions and, indeed, failures to act in order to avoid “piercing the corporate veil”.  Directors may be ordered to contribute to the assets of the company even where they have not acted dishonestly.

A common issue facing landlords of commercial premises is to decide what to do if one of its tenants has stopped paying the rent and has entered into one of the types of insolvency prescribed by statute. In the case of companies, these can include company voluntary arrangements, administration, administrative receivership, Law of Property Act receivership or liquidation. In the case of individuals, they might include individual voluntary arrangements or bankruptcy.

When is a company in insolvent? When is a company's assets less than its liabilities (taking account of contingent and prospective liabilities)?

Under English law this is a commercial test and requires that a company has reached a "point of no return" and is not based solely on a review of the company's balance sheet: