Since the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were made in order to implement the European Union’s Council Directive 80/987/EEC, there has been an ongoing debate on how regulation 8 (7) (the bankruptcy proceedings exception) should be interpreted. Fortunately, a recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has gone some way towards clarifying the issue.

There are essentially three types of insolvency proceeding: liquidation, receivership and administration. Liquidators realise and distribute a company’s assets before dissolving the company. Receivers usually realise certain secured assets to repay certain debts, before appointing a liquidator. However, an administrator’s first objective is to rescue the company as a going concern. It is only if this is not practicable that the administrator can realise and distribute a company’s assets.

The much awaited EAT decision inOTG Ltd v Barke and others (formerlyOlds v Late Editions Ltd) was delivered on 16 February. As expected, the EAT has taken the view that an administration cannot amount to “bankruptcy” or “analogous insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of Regulation 8(7) of TUPE. So, on a sale by an administrator (even in a pre-pack administration) TUPE will apply.

In more detail

The full force of TUPE is relaxed in relation to insolvent transfers as follows:

A claim by trustees against an insolvent participating employer (who has ceased to participate in the pension scheme) for its share of the scheme deficit is a contingent obligation at the date of winding up and is admissible in the winding-up. This follows the decision by the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland in Burton, Re Direction of Assets [2010] CSOH 174.

There are various routes by which a company may enter administration. The most common is an appointment by the directors. Alternatively, the holders of a qualifying floating charge may appoint or an application may be made to the court by one or more creditors.

The much awaited court decision on the status of Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) and Contribution Notices (“CNs”) * issued by the Pensions Regulator against target companies after the commencement of English insolvency processes in respect of such targets was handed down by the court on Friday 10 December 2010. The reluctant decision of Mr Justice Briggs that FSDs and CNs in these circumstances were not provable debts but ranked as expenses of the insolvency process, taking precedence ahead of unsecured creditors, has caused dismay in the restructuring community.

In a recent high profile case brought by the administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman and Nortel groups, the High Court ruled that the cost of complying with a financial support direction (“FSD”) issued after the date of the commencement of a company’s administration or liquidation by the Pensions Regulator would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

In a decision that demonstrates a considerable degree of common sense, Lord Glennie has confirmed that in certain liquidations one can dispense with the usual requirement for a Reporter to be appointed to consider a liquidator's accounts. The decision forms part of an Opinion issued by Lord Glennie in relation to the winding-up of Park Gardens Investments Limited ("the Company").

In the Matter of Bell Lines Limited (In Liquidation)  

That decision has effectively been relied on since 2006 for the proposition that, except for the Social Insurance Fund, a party advancing monies for the payment of remuneration falling due before the commencement of an insolvency process but actually paid after such commencement is not entitled to subrogate to the employees’ preferential claims.

The Appeal

The cuts revealed in the Comprehensive Spending Review have not been quite as bad as the construction industry had apparently been expecting (£3.5 billion not as bad). Nevertheless there have still been billions of pounds shaved off various departmental budgets which will affect the construction industry. Where public spending has in the past been a reliable source of income, some companies are inevitably now going to feel the effect of the cuts.