Employee issues on insolvency

Introduction

When a company becomes insolvent, the position of the employees can be key. If the business is being rescued as a going concern then it is hoped that jobs will be saved.

For that to be possible, employees may need some reassurance on their position to avoid them jumping ship, which for some businesses may have the consequence that there is then no longer any company or business of substance to be rescued. The need to get key employees on side early on must be balanced with the need to maintain confidentiality when negotiating a rescue and not causing panic in the company and among creditors if word of a potential deal spreads.

The position of an employee on a company's insolvency

The general rule is that a contract of employment is between the employer and the employee. This means that due to the personal nature of the contract, if either party changes, the contract in its current form should terminate. However, this is not necessarily to the benefit of the employee or the company on insolvency and so employment contracts can operate differently

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Fossil secures court approval for innovative UK restructuring plan (Re Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court sanctioned the restructuring plan of Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (the ‘Plan’), following near‑unanimous approval (99.99% by value) from a single class of noteholders, comprising both retail and wholesale creditors. Mr Justice Richards applied the four‑stage test set out by Lord Justice Snowden in Re AGPS Bondco Plc (‘Adler’): (i) whether the statutory requirements were satisfied, (ii) whether the class was fairly represented and voted bona fide in the interests of the class, (iii) whether the plan was fair and could reasonably have been approved (the so‑called ‘limited rationality test’), and (iv) whether any legal ‘blot’ or defect existed. The court placed particular emphasis on the quality and accessibility of information provided to retail creditors, noting that the involvement of an independent Retail Advocate helped ensure that they were properly informed and adequately represented throughout the process. Concerns regarding the participation rights of ‘New‑Money’ providers and the appropriateness of a single class were considered and rejected, with the judge satisfied that all creditors were better off under the Plan than under the relevant alternative. No defects were identified, and expert evidence supported the conclusion that the Plan would likely be recognised in the US, thereby ensuring its cross‑border effectiveness. Written by Brian Rostron, associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents