Borrowers are increasingly seeking to challenge or frustrate the validity of an appointment of a receiver on technical grounds. While each case will be determined on its own merits and facts, a recent decision of the High Court is illustrative of the Court’s attitude towards some such arguments.

The Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2013 (the “Act”) was signed into law on 24 December 2013 and has introduced what has become colloquially referred to as “examinership-lite”, or what it is hoped will be a new SME-friendly examinership regime. Examinership is the legal mechanism by which an ailing but potentially viable company can be rescued. 

The Act introduces a number of amendments to existing company law legislation, the most significant of which alters the regime in respect of the role of the Circuit Court in the examinership process. 

Ireland’s new insolvency regime came into effect on 3 December 2013. The new regime revamps the existing bankruptcy laws and brings Ireland closer into line with our European neighbours.  It focuses on negotiating an arrangement with creditors where possible, with bankruptcy as a last resort.

124 members of the Element Six pension scheme are suing the trustees of the scheme in the Commercial Court for alleged breach of duty arising out of the decision to close the scheme with a significant deficit.  The members claim that the trustees breached their duty to the members by failing to demand that the employer fully fund the deficit in the scheme before wind up.  A number of general issues relating to the obligations of trustees were raised during the 3-week hearing of the case.

Background

On 24 December 2013 the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 was signed into law by the President.  The purpose of the legislation is to expedite a number of amendments to existing legislation pending the enactment of the Companies Bill.

Circuit Court Examinership

In the matter of Fuerta Limited, High Court, 22 January 2014

Judge: Mr. Justice Charleton

A recent decision of the High Court has highlighted the interesting area of law that applies when an application is made to wind up a company on the grounds that it is "just and equitable" to do so.

Last week the Court of Appeal finished hearing the long awaited and much anticipated appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) on the hotly contested issue of whether rent is payable as an administration expense. Depending on the decision of the appeal judges this case may trigger a dramatic shift in the way that rent arising during administration is currently treated.

Background 

The Act provides for both a single insolvency priority order for underfunded schemes where the employer is solvent at the date of wind-up and a double insolvency priority order for underfunded schemes where the employer is insolvent at the date of wind-up.  It should be noted that for a scheme with a number of participating employers, all of the employers must be insolvent for the double insolvency priority order to apply.

Single insolvency priority order

A former director of Custom House Capital Limited (CHC) was recently found by the High Court to have fraudulently misrepresented to an investor that her €145,000 investment in the company was “safe” a year before CHC's collapse.

In March 2010 Ms Tressan Scott entered into a Subordinated Loan Agreement with CHC pursuant to which she loaned the sum of €145,000 to CHC. At the time the agreement was signed, Ms Scott was recovering from treatment for Lymphoma.

On 22 January 2014 the High Court ordered the winding up of a property company, Fuerta Limited, on the unusual ground that it was just and equitable to do so. Resort to this ground for winding up is usually reserved for the most intractable of situations and it is thought to be the first time the Court has done so on foot of a creditor petition.