A bank has recently successfully challenged the coming into effect of a debt settlement arrangement (“DSA”) on grounds that inaccuracies existed in the debtor’s statement of affairs such that its approval would cause material detriment and prejudice to his creditors. 

The High Court has confirmed that it does not have a role in examining the reasonableness of a creditor’s vote on a personal insolvency arrangement when considering if a bankruptcy petition should be adjourned.

In a number of recent cases, debtors:

Introduction

The recent decision of the High Court in the case of In the matter of Ladbroke (Ireland) Limited and Others has, in the first written judgment in relation to the matter, reaffirmed the principles established in the eircom examinership regarding an examiner’s engagement with potential investors. The decision upholds the primacy of the examiner’s commercial judgment, which is subject to review by the court only to the extent that it is so “utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.

The Role of the Liquidator

In the matter of Shellware Limited (In Liquidation) 2014 IEHC 184

On 1 April 2014 Barrett J. refused an application by the Liquidator of Shellware Limited (In Liquidation) for the restriction of Mr Eoghan Breslin, a former director, under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990. This decision also helpfully provides clarity regarding applications for an extension of time for the filing of a Report by a Liquidator to the Director of Corporation Enforcement under Section 56 of Company Law Enforcement Act 2001 (“Section 56 Report”). 

Congil Construction Limited & Companies Acts: Mannion -v- Connolly & Anor [2013] IEHC 544

On the 28 November 2013 the High Court restricted two directors of an insolvent construction company, Congil Construction Limited, for a period of five years.

The High Court and the Supreme Court recently confirmed a Scheme of Arrangement for SIAC Construction Limited (SCL) and certain related companies despite objections from a number of creditors. The creditors claimed that the exclusion of claims for penalties, interest and, in particular, damages not awarded by a certain date and the imposed waiver of subrogated claims was unfairly prejudicial.

Initial Confirmation Hearing

Flanagan & Anor -v- Crosby & Ors [2014] IEHC59

In Re Home Payments Limited (In Liquidation) [2013] IEHC 507, an application for directions was made by the Joint Liquidators of Home Payments Limited for the liquidators’ remuneration, costs and expenses to be discharged from customer accounts.  Prior to its liquidation the company had operated as a nationwide household budgeting and bill paying company. 

In January 2014, the Malta Financial Services Authority (“MFSA”) announced that Setanta Insurance Company Limited (“Setanta Insurance”) had ceased carrying on insurance business. As a result, no new business or renewals would be issued by the company, although existing policies would remain in force.