Share purchases: employment issues

When a buyer is interested in acquiring a business, there are two options: either the buyer acquires the entire issued share capital of the company which owns that business (known as a 'share purchase'), or the buyer acquires the collection of assets that comprise the business, which may include eg machinery, equipment, property, intellectual property rights, employees and contracts (known as an 'asset purchase').

On a share purchase, the buyer acquires the company 'warts and all'. The company remains the employer of its employees and there is no effect on contracts of employment. With certain limited exceptions, whatever rights, obligations, powers and liabilities the company has towards past, present and future employees will be unaffected by the change in ownership. If the company has a subsidiary, the same considerations will apply to that subsidiary's relationship with its employees, if any.

In contrast, where the buyer acquires the target by way of an asset purchase, it is likely that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 will apply. The key effect of TUPE 2006 is that the employees employed in the business

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Employment News

Nurse partially successful in changing room harassment claim

Law360: The Employment Tribunal (ET) has ruled that a gender-critical nurse was harassed by her employer in a dispute about use of a women's changing room by a transgender doctor, but was not harassed by the doctor herself.

Supreme Court dismisses Crown vicarious liability claim against sheriff (X v Lord Advocate)

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal concerning vicarious liability by the Crown for alleged delicts (torts) committed by a Scottish sheriff, ruling that the relationship between sheriffs and the Scottish Government is not akin to employment and that section 2(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 refers to the Sovereign in official capacity. The judgment confirms the Inner House decision that stage 1 of the vicarious liability test fails because the Scottish Government exercises no control over sheriffs' judicial functions, with the Supreme Court emphasising that judicial independence, enshrined in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, constitutes a constitutional principle preventing governmental interference with judicial decision-making. Helena Ifeka, barrister at Cloisters Chambers, discusses the implications of the judgment, and highlights aspects of the decision which are also likely to have an impact outside of employment law.

Allowing use of female toilets by transgender women not discriminatory or harassment

Law360: A female engineer has failed to convince an employment tribunal that defence supplier, Leonardo, allowing transgender individuals access to toilets based on their reassigned gender was harassment or was discriminatory towards women.

Employment Tribunals launch 18 explainer videos for unrepresented parties

President of Employment Tribunals (England & Wales), Judge Barry Clarke has announced the launch of 18 explainer videos on YouTube aimed at improving access to justice by clarifying tribunal procedures and complex employment law for unrepresented parties. The initiative also seeks to help litigants present focused claims and responses, reducing case management time. This marks the beginning of an ongoing project, with plans for additional videos in the future.