Administrations are still on the rise and our high streets, retail parks and shopping centres are changing appearance as units lie empty. You may not have heard the term ‘pre-packs’ but it could become an option for retailers to help overcome this depressing trend.  

In this edition of Retail Matters we have pulled together the facts about pre-packs, the pros and cons and an outline of the ways in which insolvency practitioners and other professional bodies are aiming to ensure that the procedure is not abused.  

What is a pre-pack?  

Background

The law in relation to landlord's hypothec underwent significant changes on 1 April 2008 when the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 abolished sequestration for rent and instead provided that the hypothec was to rank as a security in an insolvency procedure.

Since 1 April 2008 certain issues have arisen out of ambiguities in the legislation. These issues have become apparent particularly in administrations. This note looks at:

This is the third of a series of four e-bulletins in relation to administrations and company voluntary arrangements (CVAs).

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has decided that the sale of a business by way of a pre-pack administration[1] did not result in a transfer of employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, (TUPE Regulations or TUPE).

TUPE Regulations

The European High Yield Association (a trade association representing participants in the European leveraged finance market) is calling for new restructuring laws, warning that the existing regime makes it more likely that a company in financial difficulties will collapse.  

Libby Elliott looks at the proposals, which are designed to create a formal procedure for restructuring distressed companies.  

The need for change

A question facing many landlords is whether, when a tenant company faces insolvency and shows no intention of continuing to trade from the premises, they should take back the property and seek to relet it?

There are several key issues here, including:

• rates liability
• mitigating losses
• ability to recover from third parties and former tenants.

A landlord's decision has often turned on the type of insolvency faced by the tenant.

If a liquidator disclaims the lease:

The Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution was tasked with recommending changes to the present constitutional arrangements for Scotland. The Commission has now reported and has proposed that the UK Insolvency Service should have responsibility for lawmaking in respect of all elements of Scottish corporate insolvency with "appropriate input from the relevant department(s) of the Scottish Government".

The courts have the power to and increasingly will make a civil restraint order where an individual persistently issues claims that are totally without merit.

With ever increasing numbers of corporate insolvencies, it is likely that the courts will see an increase in litigation raised by insolvency practitioners and creditors arising out of restructuring arrangements entered into by companies in an attempt to stave off insolvency.

While debt restructurings must always remain a significant part of the corporate recovery toolkit, all stakeholders must be aware of the underlying rules relating to the challengeability of transactions in the run up to insolvencies.

There are two main challengeable areas in Scots law:

An employment appeal tribunal has ruled that TUPE does not apply to all sales by administrators. On this view, whether TUPE applies will depend on the objectives of the administrator when appointed. In this case it was clear from the outset that continuing to trade was not viable and an immediate sale of the company’s assets was required to secure the best outcome for creditors. That put the administration in the category of “terminal” insolvency proceedings, for which a complete exemption from TUPE applies.