In what circumstances might an individual administrator be liable for discrimination against employees of companies in administration? This was the question the Employment Tribunal asked itself in the case of Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and others.

A recent Supreme Court judgement has confirmed that where an individual, Mr X, acts as director of company A, and company A is the sole director of company B, that will not necessarily make Mr X a “de facto” director of company B.

The Court decided that the mere fact of acting as a director of a corporate director was not enough to render the individual a de-facto director, “something more” would be required, such as the director holding himself out in correspondence as a director of company B.

OTG v Barke1 is the most recent judgement by the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) on whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)  Regulations 2006 (known as 'TUPE') apply to sales by companies in administration under schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.

Corporate Debt Restructuring through a Company Voluntary Agreement

In the current economic climate most businesses will experience temporary or longer term cash flow pressure resulting in stressful trading and creditor pressure.

Since the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were made in order to implement the European Union’s Council Directive 80/987/EEC, there has been an ongoing debate on how regulation 8 (7) (the bankruptcy proceedings exception) should be interpreted. Fortunately, a recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has gone some way towards clarifying the issue.

Introduction

For all of the legal difficulties which market participants are facing in light of the insolvency of Lehman Brothers, the insolvency is providing the Courts with the opportunity to pass judgment on many of the tricky provisions of the 1992 and 2002 versions of the ISDA Master Agreement (together the "Agreements").

There are essentially three types of insolvency proceeding: liquidation, receivership and administration. Liquidators realise and distribute a company’s assets before dissolving the company. Receivers usually realise certain secured assets to repay certain debts, before appointing a liquidator. However, an administrator’s first objective is to rescue the company as a going concern. It is only if this is not practicable that the administrator can realise and distribute a company’s assets.

The Insolvency Service ("IS") has published a consultation on proposed reform to the regulation of insolvency practitioners. The consultation responds to various recommendations made last year by the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") in their study entitled, "The Market for Corporate Insolvency Practitioners".

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 Insolvency Service has published its policy, which came into effect on 1 December 2010, on realising a bankrupt's principal residence where the Official Receiver (OR) is appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.

The policy provides that the OR will not take any steps to market the bankrupt's interest in the property for a period of two years and three months from the date of the bankruptcy order. However, the OR can accept any unsolicited offer in relation to the property if it is in the best interest of creditors. After the expiry of the two years and three months: