In a recent High Court decision, a provisional liquidator was ordered to pay the costs of the official liquidator (who replaced the provisional liquidator and was appointed as the new liquidator of the company) and Revenue without being entitled to have recourse to the assets of the company.

Background

In a recent High Court decision, it was ruled that the liquidator not only failed in his application before the court, but in bringing forward an application that was 'doomed to fail', the liquidator was acting negligently and breached his duty of care to the company as liquidator. As a result, the liquidator was held personally liable for the costs of the application.

In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2020, the High Court, in refusing to appoint an examiner to New Look Retailers Ireland Limited (New Look Ireland) ruled that it was "entirely premature to consider the appointment of an examiner". New Look Ireland trades under the brand name "New Look" and operates across 27 stores in Ireland.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has recently issued welcome guidance on how the impact of COVID-19 will be considered by the ODCE when evaluating potential restriction cases in respect of directors of insolvent companies – see here.

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background

The Revenue Commissioners have issued some recent welcome clarifications about certain provisions of the Government's temporary wage subsidy scheme.

Application for the Subsidy Scheme – An Admission of Insolvency?

The main provisions of the subsidy scheme are set out in Section 28 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.

That section also contains the criteria for an employer's eligibility to avail of the subsidy scheme. One such criterion is that:

In the case of Wilson v McNamara [2020] EWHC 98 (Ch) the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) considered whether the EU principle of freedom of establishment requires that a pension held in another EU member state (Ireland) should be excluded from a bankruptcy estate under UK law in the same manner as a UK pension would be in a UK bankruptcy. Mr Justice Nugee decided in order to decide the case the Court needed to refer a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on a question of EU law.