Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions

Where lenders are lending to and taking security from companies that may become subject to special administration regimes, the value of the security may be affected and enforcement options restricted. More companies are subject to these procedures than you might think. So, how do you identify whether your borrower is subject to one of these regimes? Should you place a lower value on your security? What are your enforcement rights? Might your borrower become affected after grant of the security?

Special administration regimes

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc & others [2011] EWCA Civ 227

The Court of Appeal has allowed companies around the country to breathe a solvent sigh of relief, as it has held that the so-called “balance sheet” test of insolvency in s123(2) Insolvency Act 1996 is intended to apply where a company has reached a “point of no return” rather than being used as a “mechanistic, even artificial, reason for permitting a creditor to present a petition to wind up a company”.  

Background

Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides two main tests of when a company is insolvent:

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled in five conjoined appeals that TUPE applies in all administrations, since they constitute ”relevant insolvency proceedings” and not ”liquidation proceedings”. This will be the case even in “pre-pack” administrations, where a business is placed into administration but immediately sold to a purchaser who has been lined up to buy the business beforehand.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal (the “CA”) in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 227 was handed down on 7 March 2011.

In a decision that departs from an earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling, the EAT has ruled in OTG Ltd v Barke and others that normal TUPE principles always apply to administrations, including pre-pack administrations, because an administration does not constitute “bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings…instituted with a view to liquidation of the assets of the transferor”. This means that employees do automatically transfer to the buyer in an administration situation and thus are protected against unfair dismissal.

Background

We reported on the High Court case of BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail in August 2010 and last week's Court of Appeal decision provides further important guidance on the interpretation of the balance sheet insolvency.

There has been an upturn in the frequency of trade finance workouts, restructurings and formal insolvencies. Susan Moore and Luci Mitchell-Fry look at some key issues that banks face when trade finance lending passes to "bad bank".

The bank's decisions at every stage of a trade finance transaction are critical: at origination; when following a workout/restructuring; and once a formal insolvency process becomes a reality.

Origination