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.

Last week the Employment Appeal Tribunal 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.

In this case, a liquidator had commenced proceedings against the former director of a company in relation to transactions which were alleged to have been made at an undervalue and/or with an intention to defraud creditors and/or which were preferential. It was also alleged that the former director had acted in breach of his fiduciary duties in procuring or permitting the transactions to take place.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held in OTG Ltd v Barke (2011 UKEAT) that TUPE will apply to transfer employees when a company goes into administration, including on a pre-pack administration. This decision overturns the leading case of Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, which found that TUPE did not apply to "pre-packs".

Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s pending appeal against the judgments of the UK High Court and the Court of Appeal in the so called “flip clause cases”, concerning the enforceability of flip clauses, is scheduled to be begin with Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited (Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (UKSC 2009/0222)) on March 1, 2011.

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

The EAT's judgment