FSA has published an undertaking Legal & General has given under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), in relation to its home insurance policies. It held that certain critical expressions in the policy were potentially so wide that it was hard for a customer to know what was excluded. The insurer agreed to make its wording easier to understand. (Source: FSA Publishes Insurance UTCCR Undertaking)

Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567

The Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited Judgment in the case of Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis, confirming that businesses which are in administration are not exempted from TUPE.

Agreements with administrators often contain provisions to the effect that any claim against the company in administration will rank only as an unsecured claim and not as an expense of the administration. Although such provisions are common, there has always been some doubt as to their efficacy.

 The Court of Appeal has held that a transfer on an administration cannot be caught by TUPE rules, unlike on insolvency proceedings. As such administrations will not be “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the exemption to TUPE.

What does this mean?

Businesses who purchase companies who have been placed into administration will take on the liability under TUPE for the company’s employees. Employees will transfer under TUPE and  will be protected from transfer- connected dismissals.

What should employers do?

The Court of Appeal has clarified in the case of Key2law (Surrey) LLP v Gaynor De’Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567 that administration proceedings do not constitute “insolvency proceedings which have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor” in terms of regulation 8(7) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 and therefore fall outside the scope of regulation 8(7).

The recent flurry of news reports regarding the administration of high street retail chains and the subsequent sale of parts of their businesses is perhaps an opportune time to flag up the renewed importance that the hypothec plays in Scottish property law.

By virtue of the hypothec, in insolvency, a landlord automatically obtains a fixed charge ranking on the proceeds of sale of the moveable goods of the tenant that are on the premises as at the point of insolvency, up to the value of any arrears of rent.

An English rugby club (an unincorporated association of its members) engaged the services of Barnes Webster & Sons (BWS), a construction company. The club’s treasurer signed the contract, which was witnessed by Davies, the club’s president. The club agreed to pay BWS a fixed price plus additional amounts for certain variations in the work, should they arise. The variations were required, but the club did not pay the £147,000 bill for them that BWS presented. BWS made a demand on Davies personally, which he moved to set aside.

On October 31, 2011 (the “Petition Date”), MF Global, which up to that point had been one of the world’s largest broker/dealer firms, was plunged into insolvency on both sides of the pond. On the Petition Date, MF Global Holdings, Ltd. and MF Global Finance USA, Inc. (the “US Debtors”) each filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Contemporaneously with the U.S. bankruptcy filings, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation initiated the liquidation of MF Global, Inc., the U.S.

One exception to the otherwise far-reaching scope of the automatic stay is the “police power” exception, which permits a governmental unit to commence or continue an action or proceeding that is in furtherance of its police and regulatory powers (section 362(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code). In the past, bankruptcy courts have held that the “police power” exception extends to actions taken by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the agency charged with protecting pension benefits in private-sector defined pension plans.

The Court of Appeal has held in the recent case of Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine and another (2011) that a dismissal can be for “a reason connected with the transfer” under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) even if there is no particular transfer or transferee in existence or contemplation at the time of the dismissal. In the case Mr Baillavoine, the Chief Executive of Ultralon Holdings Ltd (“Ultralon”), was dismissed on the day Ultralon was placed into administration.