Britain and Brexit: A Forecast of the Future of Employment Protection during Corporate Insolvency

Brexit has produced a lot of uncertainties in the UK, not the least of which are the future of protections that have been derived from EU social policy Directives. Arguably, the UK's membership in the EU has pushed it further into a socially liberal and protective framework that it might not have adopted had it remained outside of the EU's sphere of influence. The question now is what direction the UK will take with regard to both the rescue culture and the social protections, both of which have been highly influenced by EU law and policy. The UK has ever been the “odd man out” in the EU, springing as it does from a significantly different legal origin than the Franco/German model at the heart of the EU. Examining the developmental path of other common law jurisdictions (America, Canada, and Australia) whose legal systems are derived from the British may be instructive in relation to the direction the UK might have taken had it not joined the EU, with a particular focus on the employment protections derived from the EU which are often applicable during insolvency and rescue procedures. An analysis of this counterfactual position may then also provide a clue or forecast as to the direction that the UK may take following Brexit

The Role of Social Policy in Corporate Rescue and Restructuring: a Messy Business

The purpose of this chapter is to examine some of the competing insolvency theories or policies that contradict the creditors’ bargain and allow for a consideration of social policy matters (section 2); explore the interplay between social policy and insolvency and restructuring, focusing on the introduction of the new EU Preventive Restructuring Directive (section 3);11 consider and compare the approach to social policy as it intersects with insolvency and restructuring in the EU as well as two key restructuring destinations of both the UK and the USA (section 4); and finally to consider what the position may be given the crises of health and economies encountered in 2020 that affect both social and financial/economic issues globally (section 5)

Floating Charges and Moral Hazard: Searching for Fairness for Involuntary and Vulnerable Stakeholders

Insolvency and bankruptcy are words that tend to conjure disappointment, fear and blame in most corners of the globe, with the notable exception of the US, which has the aura of rewarding risk-taking entrepreneurs by frequent do-overs. The same cannot be said for most of the rest of the world, particularly within the UK, which until quite recently has ever been hesitant to introduce insolvency or restructuring procedures that allow the debtor company's management to remain in control of the ailing firm. Along with these procedures, whether debtor in possession or otherwise, come adjustments to the rights and entitlements of creditors and other stakeholders associated with the company in financial distress. This includes, whether directly or indirectly, an impact on employees who are essentially involuntary creditors to an insolvency process entered by their corporate employer, along with other vulnerable and involuntary creditors such as franchisees and tort (or delict) claimants. Although there are a number of firebreaks that provide a buffer for employees under such circumstances in most countries, the underlying paradigm of the insolvency process resembles a re-commoditisation of labour as one of a number of stakeholders who become categorised in terms of preference, priority and payment as creditors, reducing employees to the value of what they are owed for their labour. While insolvency and restructuring have a significant impact on a debtor company's employees, there are also devices that may indirectly interfere with the full complement of employee rights, whether statutory or contractual

Microbial growth and spoilage of vacuum packaged country ham slices as affected by preservation treatment

In recent years there has been a trend to reduce the amount of salt and nitrate/nitrite used to produce country cured hams to yield a more moist and mild product. It was thought that this practice has caused problems in maintaining ambient temperature shelf life of vacuum packaged country ham slices. Twelve country hams were collected from a Tennessee country ham producer at a plant experiencing chronic problems in maintaining shelf life of vacuum pack aged country ham slices. Hams collected were in the range of 3.78 to 6.04% (mean) salt. Six center cut slices were cut from each ham and vacuum packaged at the plant site using the exact manner used for hams going to retail sales. Slices were transported to the University of Tennessee laboratories where they were incubated at 28°C for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks. Chemical and microbiological test were preformed on the ham slices to determine of there was a relationship between spoilage characteristics and the level of preservatives present. Chemical analysis revealed that the preservatives levels present at the range examined would not prevent spoilage of product. Microbial loads of hams were high initially and increased rapidly in the first week. It was found that hams above 4.5% salt content did not show spoilage characteristics such as distention of package and strong odors until after the second week of incubation. Hams having less than 4.5% salt, began to have off-odors and swelling of packages within one week. Nitrate had the greatest decrease in levels between day 1 and week 1, with a subsequent increase during the second to sixth week storage periods. One reason for this may be that there was generally a decrease in moisture content over the storage period, thus reducing the weight of the sample and concentrating nitrate. Concurrently as nitrate decreased, nitrite increased. This was possibly due to the reduction of nitrate to nitrite by bacteria present in the ham. Ambient temperature storage of ham slices having less than 4.5% salt will not give a satisfactory product for more than one week

Special Report: Judicial Co-Operation in the European Union: Insolvency and Rescue

The Judicial Co-Operation for Economic Recovery in Europe (JCOERE) is a research action project funded by the EU Commission DG Justice. The project focuses on particular substantive and procedural obstacles to the obligation imposed on courts in the European Insolvency Regulation Recast to co-operate in the comparative context of domestic restructuring frameworks, such as the Examinership procedure in Ireland, and the eventual implementation of the provisions of the Preventive Restructuring Directive. While engaging proactively with the EU judiciary, the team will document experiences with co-operation and utilisation of co-operation guidelines, disseminating findings to aid future court-to-court co-operation

JCOERE Report 1: Report 1: Identifying substantive rules in preventive restructuring frameworks including the Preventive Restructuring Directive which may be incompatible with judicial cooperation obligations

This JCOERE Report 1 identifies substantive and procedural rules in preventive restructuring frameworks (either those which have already been introduced in some European jurisdictions at this point, or in the PRD) which may present challenges to implementation and co-operation. JCOERE Report 2 will continue to develop the enquiry regarding courts, judicial and administrative authorities, and procedural rules and consider how these factors may affect court-to-court co-operation generally, while also benchmarking the utilisation and awareness of best practice guidelines for court-to-court co-operation in preventive restructuring. As the research has continued the importance of explaining some of these challenges by reference to legal culture has become clear