This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

In a market study, called “The market for corporate insolvency practitioners,” published on 24 June 2010 The Office of Fair Trading (OFT), proposed extensive reforms of the current corporate insolvency regulatory regime. After an eight-month study the OFT believes that reforms are needed to build market trust and create a regime that works in the best interests of creditors as a whole.

Two documents on winding up procedures have recently been released for consultation. The first is a joint statement by the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and the DWP in respect of the Financial Assistance Scheme on the regulation of schemes in wind up and in a PPF assessment period. The second is a set of good practice guidelines from the Pensions Regulator on avoiding delays in the winding up of schemes.

The Employment Tribunal ruled last month that ex-employees of Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited (in liquidation) (“SSI”) are entitled to the maximum protective award for a complete failure by SSI to inform and consult with them about their redundancies (90 days’ pay for each of the 1100 employees affected).

China is one of the largest manufacturers and consumers of iron and steel products.   The steel industry in China has developed over several decades into the biggest in the world. China accounts for nearly 50% of world steel production. It has been driven by rapid modernization of its economy, construction, infrastructure and manufacturing industries.

One of the functions of the UK Insolvency Service is to investigate directors’ conduct and if appropriate to commence directors disqualification proceedings or enter into disqualification undertakings. As the Insolvency Service has recently reviewed in its Newsletter the type of conduct which led to the longest disqualification bans in 2014/2015, now would seem like a perfect opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned from the biggest offenders.

A recent English High Court decision has held that prospective Administrators do not need to look behind the directors’ motives in appointing them; they need to look ahead as to what might happen in the administration and consider whether the statutory purpose of the administration can be achieved.

In common with most of the population, now is the key time for making those resolutions for 2015. Suggestions appear below!

The Administrators of a group of companies put their proposals before the creditors who failed to approve the proposals. Indeed, they failed to vote at all. The Administrators applied for the proposals to be approved by the Court. It was held that such approval was not required unless  the proposals were actively opposed by creditors. In the absence of such approval, the judge considered that the administrators have the power to act in their own discretion. The judge also used the case to comment on the standard form of proposals used by most insolvency practitioners.

The summer months are upon us, and developments in insolvency law and practice continue apace. Since our Spring issue the courts have pronounced in a number of interesting cases. At the time of writing, the World Cup is underway – it would perhaps be remiss not to have some football flavour in this article, and so some observations on the plight of Portsmouth FC are appropriate (though saved till the end).

Successive notices of intention to appoint administrators: more than one moratorium?