It is very much the nature of the job that appointed Office Holders are required to make difficult and challenging decisions on each and every case they take. On some occasions those decisions are well received – on others, not so well. Creditors affected by those decisions can take comfort that the Office Holder is experienced in making those difficult decisions, is an Officer of the Court, has their own licence to protect and, fundamentally, has a duty to treat all creditors fairly.
During the previous UK government’s tenure, in March 2015 a call for evidence was launched to understand better the employee consultation process when an employer faces insolvency, restructure or other form of company rescue (Call for Evidence on Collective Redundancy Consultation for Employers facing Insolvency).
The call for evidence sought views on the following areas:
Unless you have been living in a cave, you will have heard the very disappointing news that the current exemption to the Jackson reforms for insolvency claims under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (“LASPO”) will cease as of 1 April 2016.
If you are to avail yourself of the benefits of the Jackson exemption, which was one of the few pieces of legislation that levelled out the playing field between Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) and rogue directors – then read on.
The director at the heart of the Carrington Wire pension fund deficit saga has been disqualified for a period of 12 years.
Background
On 1 April 2015, responsibility for consumer credit in the UK transferred from the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) to the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). A consequence of this was to replace the OFT’s Consumer Credit Act licencing scheme with the FCA’s authorisation scheme under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).
One of the changes introduced by the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“SBEE”) which came into force on 1 October 2015 was to allow administrators and liquidators the right to assign their rights of action in respect of fraudulent trading claims, wrongful trading claims, transactions at an undervalue, preferences and extortionate credit transactions.
The directors of the failed courier company City Link had a good reason to celebrate this weekend after the dismissal of criminal charges brought against them for failing to notify the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (“BIS”) of their intention to make City Link’s circa 2,500 employees redundant last Christmas.
The suitability of the collective consultation regime under the Trade Union and Labour Relation (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”) in an insolvency scenario has always been a hot topic amongst insolvency professionals.
Three former directors of failed UK parcel delivery company City Link have recently been delivered the bad news that they will face criminal charges over redundancies made during the Christmas period last year. They have been charged with failure to notify the Secretary of State of the proposed redundancy of City Link’s employees as required under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Notification is normally given to the Government by submitting an HR1 form to the Insolvency Service
Recent posts on eSQUIRE Global Crossings have highlighted the problems in the oil and gas sector and unfortunately this is not the only sector under pressure.
Job losses and insolvency in the steel industry