header-logo header-logo

19 March 2009 / Mark Parkhouse , Kerry Scott
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Opinion , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

A fair deal?

Mark Parkhouse & Kerry Scott on the criticism of pre-package administrations

* * * * * *

Insolvency issues are rarely far from the front page of most newspapers these days. In particular, the use of prepackaged administrations (pre-packs) has been the focus of vigorous recent criticism.

This article considers if the criticisms are justified and whether current provisions, including the Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 “Pre-packaged Sales in Administrations” (SIP 16) (which came into effect in England and Wales on 1 January 2009), will appease creditors' concerns.

Aims of administration

In order to consider pre-packs in context, it is first useful to recap on the aims which are imposed on administrators by legislation (Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended), Sch B1, para 3(1)):

      
      (i)     The prime objective—to rescue the company as a going concern; or

      
      (ii)     The second objective—to achieve a better result for the company's creditors as a whole than would otherwise be the case if the company were simply to be wound up (without first

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll