A primary aim of the regulatory amendments included in UCITS IV was to facilitate the creation of more efficient structures within the UCITS framework.

The three key aspects of UCITS IV designed to assist in achieving this result are the new management company passport, provisions permitting the creation of master-feeder structures and the terms specifically enabling cross border fund mergers.  

The new bankruptcy provisions contained in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 were commenced yesterday. The Act has been in force since 2 August.

The new provisions allow for automatic discharge on the 12th anniversary of a bankruptcy adjudication order and a reduction in the period for application for discharge from bankruptcy to five years from 12 years.

The claim against the liquidator was abandoned due to the fact that he was an insolvency practitioner and had no personal responsibility for the present state of the site and there was nothing to suggest that the “liquidator did anything wrong”.  What is involved in the concept of doing nothing wrong is not explained.  Interpreting the risk to liquidators in light of this case and the leading Irish Ispat case (in which a liquidator also escaped clean up costs), liquidators need to carefully consider what actions to take, or not to take, if it transpires that issues arise about unl

Government proposals for new legislation would alter the law and procedures of personal insolvency in radical ways. The proposals include the establishment of an independent Insolvency Service and the introduction of non-judicial procedures for addressing unsecured debts (of any value) and secured debts (in the range €20,000 to €3 million). Current bankruptcy laws would also be amended.

On 25 January 2012 the Government announced proposals to amend the laws and procedures of personal insolvency in radical ways.

On 25 January 2012, the Irish Government published the heads of a proposed new law, the Personal Insolvency Bill, which, it states, has the aim of providing “a new approach to dealing with insolvency” in Ireland.

The Minister for Justice and Equality has published details of a proposed Personal Insolvency Bill.   It is expected that the Bill itself will be published on 30 April 2012 when further details will then be available. The Minister has invited comment from any interested parties on the General Scheme of the Bill. The proposed Bill would provide for the establishment of an Insolvency Service to incorporate the new non-judicial insolvency arrangements. The new non-judicial debt settlement system would operate subject to certain conditions.  These would include:

In Re: Michael McLoughlin Pharmacy Ltd. The examiner sought the High Court’s approval for a scheme of arrangement which limited his liability for negligence. The secured creditor objected as a matter of principle because such limitations of liability had become commonplace in schemes. The secured creditor made it clear that there was no suggestion of any negligence by the examiner in the particular case.

The court considered:

In an insolvent winding up, preferential creditors are entitled to be paid first from assets subject to a charge which at the time of creation was floating, regardless of whether the floating charge has crystallised at the commencement of the winding up.

In a series of cases the High Court has:

In January 2010 an interim examiner was appointed to Missford Limited, which operated the Residence Club, a private members club in St. Stephen’s Green.

In a written judgment on the costs and expenses of the interim examiner, the court held that the interim examiner “simply did more with the best of motives than his warrant permitted”. The court proceeded to refuse the interim examiner’s application for remuneration in respect of any work carried out in excess of his statutory powers.

In the matter of Cognotec Ltd (in receivership)

Section 60(14) provides that a transaction in breach of section 60 is voidable against any person who had notice of the facts which constitute the breach.

The company sought to void the debenture which secured the loan on the basis that section 60 had not been complied with and the receiver appointed on foot of the debenture brought a motion for directions.

The court held that: