Regulation 7(1) of TUPE usually makes a dismissal automatically unfair if it is for a reason connected with the business transfer. But what if the reason for the dismissal is actually good old personal dislike and the transfer is just the context in which it surfaced?

Cathryn Williams and Paul Muscutt, partners in the Squire Patton Boggs Restructuring & Insolvency team in London, interview Ian Fletcher, Director of Policy (Real Estate) of the BPF (the trade association for UK residential and commercial real estate companies) to get the BPF’s views on the recent spate of CVAs seeking to reduce/compromise lease liabilities.

Do you think the current use of CVAs is fair on landlords?

A great deal of insolvency litigation is funded by non-parties to a claim – for example, by a creditor or an “after the event” (ATE) insurer. Ordinarily such arrangements and their precise terms are confidential and are not required to be fully disclosed to a counterparty in litigation. In the recent case of Re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) [2017] EWHC 3465 (ch) (“Hellas”), the court considered the extent to which the underlying details of the litigation funders should be disclosed for the purposes of a security for costs application.

In a corporate world where the capital structures of companies are becoming increasingly complex, schemes of arrangements under the Companies Act 2006 have established themselves as the restructuring procedure of choice for many distressed companies. This popularity is evidenced by the fact that schemes of arrangement have been increasingly used by overseas companies wishing to restructure their debts under the flexibility offered by English law.

The uncertainties of the UK’s Brexit negotiations with the remaining 27 EU member states are weighing heavily on the UK economy. The 2 years of negotiations will not even begin until notice is served under Article 50 and the procedure as to how Article 50 can be triggered will be the subject of a Supreme Court decision expected later this month.

The UK Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is reviewing its insolvency risk model with Experian. The proposals being considered are particularly relevant to the financial services and charity sectors. They would be introduced from 2018/2019 (and will not be part of the draft levy rules and levy estimate for 2017/18, which we expect will contain few changes).

In summary, the PPF is considering:

Throughout the pandemic we have seen a succession of temporary practice directions, enabling practitioners to deal with the swearing of notices of intention (NOI) and notices of appointment (NOA) of administrators remotely, as well as answering a question which the judiciary had grappled with several times – when does a notice of intention or notice of appointment come into effect if filed outside of court hours?

The pandemic and various lockdowns have been tough on the landlord community. The last few days have not made that any easier. First, the New Look decision dismissed the challenge mounted by a number of landlords (see our blog here ). Then on 12 May 2021 the landlord community was dealt another blow by the outcome of the restructuring plan (“RP”) in Virgin Active.

At the start of 2020, we considered what changes the UK restructuring and insolvency market might expect to see during the year – however no one could sensibly have predicted the significant and far reaching impact of COVID-19.

In part 1 of our blog, we look back at 2020 and look forward to what the UK restructuring market can expect in 2021 considering the new Insolvency Laws, expected Rule changes, pre-pack sales and practice and procedural points.

Insolvency Laws – all change in 2020, what about 2021?

In Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja [2020] UKSC 31, the UK Supreme Court has opened the way for a judgment creditor to sue a controller of companies who denuded the companies and placed them in liquidation to defeat the creditor's enforcement of a US$5 million judgment. The Court of Appeal had ruled that the creditor was caught by the so-called "reflective principle" that prevents shareholders recovering losses suffered in common with the company. Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia and other common law jurisdictions are almost certain to follow suit.