Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s pending appeal against the judgments of the UK High Court and the Court of Appeal in the so called “flip clause cases”, concerning the enforceability of flip clauses, is scheduled to be begin with Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited (Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (UKSC 2009/0222)) on March 1, 2011.

The EAT's judgment

In what circumstances might an individual administrator be liable for discrimination against employees of companies in administration? This was the question the Employment Tribunal asked itself in the case of Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and others.

A recent Supreme Court judgement has confirmed that where an individual, Mr X, acts as director of company A, and company A is the sole director of company B, that will not necessarily make Mr X a “de facto” director of company B.

The Court decided that the mere fact of acting as a director of a corporate director was not enough to render the individual a de-facto director, “something more” would be required, such as the director holding himself out in correspondence as a director of company B.

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.

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.

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.

The Insolvency Service has published its policy, which came into effect on 1 December 2010, on realising a bankrupt's principal residence where the Official Receiver (OR) is appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.

The policy provides that the OR will not take any steps to market the bankrupt's interest in the property for a period of two years and three months from the date of the bankruptcy order. However, the OR can accept any unsolicited offer in relation to the property if it is in the best interest of creditors. After the expiry of the two years and three months:

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.

The administrator who is running off the business of English (re)insurer GLOBAL General & Reinsurance Company Ltd filed a petition under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code with the federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan yesterday. The petition asks for the court's assistance with the last of four Schemes of Arrangement for GLOBAL, which was sanctioned by the High Court of Justice for England & Wales on January 28, 2011.