As this note goes to press, there is a fresh round of tenant insolvencies.  Administrators are again presenting proposals to landlords that severely reduce their rights to rent and to control who occupies their premises.

We have advised on many such proposals and secured payment of significant sums due to landlords.  Don't just accept terms proposed by administrators before taking advice.

Appointing administrators out of court has been thrown into complete disarray following Sir Andrew Morritt’s comments in Minmar. In that case, he said a directors’ out of court appointment would have been invalid if the company had not been given notice of the intention to appoint administrators.

After nearly two years of discussion and consultation, the UK Government has today announced that it will not be seeking to introduce new legislative controls on pre-packs, including a proposed three day notice or "cooling off" period.

The term “pre-pack” typically refers to a sale of all or part of a company’s business which is negotiated prior to the company going into administration and then completed by the administrator shortly after his appointment.

In the recent English case of Pick v Chief Land Registrar [2011] EWHC 206(Ch), the High Court held that a buyer was entitled to be registered at the Land Registry as the registered proprietor of a property sold by a bankrupt. This was the case, even though the buyer allowed the priority period in which to effect registration to lapse, and the entry of a bankruptcy restriction was made on the title after the date of the transfer, but before the application for registration.

Key2law (Surrey) LLP v D’Antiquis 2011 EWCA Civ 1567

USDAW and others v WW Realisation 1 Limited (in Liquidation) and another ET 3201156/2010

This case concerns the recent news about the protective award made against Woolworths PLC.  Woolworths which employed over 27,000 employees in 814 stores went into administration at the end of November 2008.  Joint administrators were appointed and it went into liquidation.

The Issue

On 29 November 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled for the dismissal of appeals lodged by Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (DSWC) and Bernard Freeman and Michael Sullivan, trading as Satellite Services (SS), in respect of winding-up orders previously secured by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) against these companies.

The Court of Appeal has issued further guidance on the thorny issue of the application of the TUPE Regulations to administration proceedings.  While many practitioners will feel that the decisions are not helpful in trying to achieve business sales in what is already a challenging market, insolvency practitioners (IPs) nonetheless need to be aware of the clarity that these cases have brought. The key points to note are:

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background