On 15 April 2014 the European Parliament voted in favour of the European Commission initiative for a Regulation establishing a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) to simplify EU cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. This legislation aims to establish a procedure whereby the courts of EU member states can issue orders preserving or “freezing” bank accounts across the EU without the need for any intervention by the courts of any other member state.

The High Court has confirmed that leave of the Court is required before an application can be brought to cross-examine an Official Assignee (In re Sean Dunne, A Bankrupt [2014] IEHC 113).

Background

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”). 

The exercise of the court’s discretionary jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered overseas company has again come under judicial spotlight in the recent case of Re China Medical Technologies Inc. (HCCW 435/2012).

The High Court in Hong Kong recently examined the circumstances in which a liquidator was able to depart from their implied duty not to disclose documents obtained from third parties under statute or in the furtherance of their legal duty.

The Court of First Instance in Hong Kong recently provided a timely reminder that the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company is an exorbitant one and therefore winding up petitions and applications for leave to serve them out of the Hong Kong jurisdiction must be properly thought through and drafted before the Court will consider giving leave to serve out, and they may be liable to be struck out entirely if not.

In its decision in In re Davis Joinery Ltd [2013] IEHC 353, the High Court identified the difficulties that employees of corporate employers may face when their employer ceases trading without taking any steps to formally wind-up the company.

The manner in which creditors’ meetings are conducted can often be as significant as the actual outcome of the meeting.  A good example of this can be seen from the recent High Court decision in In re Mountview Foods Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) [2013] IEHC 125.

Section 222 of the Companies Acts 1963 provides that leave of the High Court must be obtained in order to bring or prosecute proceedings against a company which is the subject of a winding-up order.  In In re MJBCH Ltd: Mary Murphy [2013] IEHC 256, the High Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to grant leave retrospectively under this section.

The Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was signed into law on 26 December 2012.  As of 31 July 2013, all sections of the Act (save for Part 4 which relates to bankruptcy) had been commenced by ministerial order. 

In our Spring Insolvency Update, we provided an overview of the main provisions of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012.  Here we provide an update on some recent developments relating to the legislation.