The Court of Appeal handed down its decision on 6 November 2009 upholding the High Court decision that a scheme of arrangement is not an appropriate mechanism by which the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) can return assets to LBIE’s clients.

In a much anticipated judgment the Court of Appeal has clarified the position regarding the anti-deprivation rule.

In August we reported that the Court of Appeal had expressed doubts as to whether the EAT in Oakland v Wellswood was right to suggest that pre-pack administrations could be insolvencies "begun with a view to liquidation" (so that TUPE does not apply to transfer employees).

Last year, in the case of Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, the EAT suggested that, if an administrator has been appointed with a view to liquidating a transferor company, this fell within the exception provided by TUPE Regulation 8(7) (which provides that where there are insolvency proceedings instituted with a view to liquidation, the key employee protections afforded under TUPE do not apply). This ran contrary to government guidance.

We have spent a lot of time thinking about landlords being affected by tenants going into administration over the last year. This posting is about a court case where the landlord’s administrators were trying to postpone the tenant’s application to Court for the grant of a new tenancy under the 1954 Act.

The administrators failed in their attempts to defer the 1954 Act proceedings even though it severely affected the value of the property in question and the amount that was going to be paid out to the secured creditor.

Where "prejudice" is suffered by a creditor or contributory, the court can order a compulsory liquidation despite a voluntary liquidation having already been entered into.

Following up on our previous blog on Lord Glennie's controversial decision in the Scottish Lion solvent scheme of arrangement we can now report that last week the scheme was formally dismissed.

The case of D/S Norden A/S v Samsun Logix Corp & Ors [2009] EWHC 2304 (Ch) concerned international co-operation in insolvency proceedings under the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency. S was subject to insolvency proceedings in Korea. The English court, having recognised the Korean insolvency proceedings, had granted a stay on creditors issuing proceedings against S and its property.

In August we reported that the Court of Appeal had expressed doubts as to whether the EAT in Oakland v Wellswood was right to suggest that pre-pack administrations could be insolvencies "begun with a view to liquidation" (so that TUPE does not apply to transfer employees).

Summary: A Supreme Court decision on 29 October 2009 has overturned the previous Court of Appeal ruling in relation to Sigma Finance (in administrative receivership) (Sigma).