The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held in OTG Ltd v Barke (2011 UKEAT) that TUPE will apply to transfer employees when a company goes into administration, including on a pre-pack administration. This decision overturns the leading case of Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, which found that TUPE did not apply to "pre-packs".

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:

The recent sale of the bulk of Connaught's failed social housing group has received a lot of positive press attention of late, due largely to the number of jobs the deal is reported to have saved.

The sale appears to have occurred within days of Connaught going into administration. While there has been no suggestion that the deal was effected as a "pre-pack", the speed with which the sale was carried out echoes the most prominent feature of true pre-pack deals.

On 31 March 2010, the UK Insolvency Service released a new consultation paper entitled "improving the transparency of, and confidence in, pre-packaged sales in administrations.

The Government has announced that it will shortly begin a consultation on important new measures designed to boost confidence in the ‘pre-pack’ administration procedure.

NEW RULES ON PRE-ADMINISTRATION COSTS

Insolvency Practitioners have been eagerly awaiting the implementation on 6 April 2010 of the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2010 (“New Rules”). In addition to the many modernising changes made by the New Rules is the long awaited inclusion of what was believed to be a statutory entitlement to recover pre-appointment costs such as in negotiating a pre-pack. as an expense of the administration (New Rule 2.67(1)(h)).

Under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006, it is open to a solvent company to enter into an arrangement or compromise with its creditors or members. Over the past 10-15 years such solvent schemes have been implemented in M&A and restructuring transactions and have proved increasingly popular in the insurance market, permitting insurers to crystallise their contingent liabilities.

Scottish Lion appealed against a judgment delivered by Lord Glennie in which the petition for the proposed scheme of arrangement was dismissed (see our previous blog entries http://www.insurereinsure.com/BlogHome.aspx?entry=1910 and http://www.insurereinsure.com/BlogHome.aspx?entry=1985).

For nearly a year, the Scottish Lion Insurance Company, Limited ( “Scottish Lion”), an insurance company that wrote coverage in the London insurance market, has been litigating with its creditors (policyholders), including many U.S. creditors, to permit it to enter into what is known under U.K. law as a solvent scheme of arrangement. A Scottish appellate court recently ruled in favor of Scottish Lion on a preliminary question of whether such a scheme could be sanctioned under U.K. law despite opposition from a minority of U.S.

Summary and implications

Two recent cases involving company administrations have seen the court take very different approaches to an administrator’s demands. The court has shown that it will look at the overall purpose of the administration before deciding whether to allow administrators to use their powers. Clients should consider: