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

On December 29, 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in the chapter 11 bankruptcy case In re Nortel Networks, Inc., holding that the "automatic stay" on creditor collection actions outside the bankruptcy applied to prevent the UK Pension Protection Fund and the Trustee of the UK Nortel Pension Plan from participating in UK pensions proceedings initiated by the UK Pensions Regulator.

Key2Law (Surrey) LLP v De'Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567

In this case the Court of Appeal held that, as a general rule, administration does not fall within regulation 8(7) of TUPE 2006 (which disapplies the automatic transfer principle meaning that employees do not transfer) and instead falls within regulation 8(6) of TUPE 2006 (which is much narrower in scope and only protects a transferee against the transfer of certain liabilities to employees).

 Valuation evidence

The court has reaffirmed that comparable sales evidence is the best evidence when determining the retrospective valuation of a property.

Written Ministerial statement

Edward Davey, Minister for Employment relations, consumers and postal affairs; Department for Business, innovation and skills

In March 2011 I announced that we would be taking steps to improve the transparency and confidence of pre-pack sales in insolvency.  We subsequently consulted interested parties on measures targeted at the sales of assets in insolvent companies where these are sold to connected parties (such as the directors or their close associates).

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.

Agreements with administrators often contain provisions to the effect that any claim against the company in administration will rank only as an unsecured claim and not as an expense of the administration. Although such provisions are common, there has always been some doubt as to their efficacy.

 The Court of Appeal has held that a transfer on an administration cannot be caught by TUPE rules, unlike on insolvency proceedings. As such administrations will not be “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the exemption to TUPE.

What does this mean?

Businesses who purchase companies who have been placed into administration will take on the liability under TUPE for the company’s employees. Employees will transfer under TUPE and  will be protected from transfer- connected dismissals.

What should employers do?

The Court of Appeal has clarified in the case of Key2law (Surrey) LLP v Gaynor De’Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567 that administration proceedings do not constitute “insolvency proceedings which have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor” in terms of regulation 8(7) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 and therefore fall outside the scope of regulation 8(7).

The recent flurry of news reports regarding the administration of high street retail chains and the subsequent sale of parts of their businesses is perhaps an opportune time to flag up the renewed importance that the hypothec plays in Scottish property law.

By virtue of the hypothec, in insolvency, a landlord automatically obtains a fixed charge ranking on the proceeds of sale of the moveable goods of the tenant that are on the premises as at the point of insolvency, up to the value of any arrears of rent.