This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 888). In the case, it was determined that a restructuring adviser who engineered an asset-stripping scheme may be found liable for the full value of the loss arising out of the scheme.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF summarises the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision granting leave to proceed against a company despite the appointment of a small business restructuring (SBR) practitioner under Pt 5.3B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

Key takeaways

A recent High Court decision in Mac Interiors[1] determined whether a company needs to be formed and registered in this jurisdiction in order to enter into the examinership rescue process.

Mac-Interiors Limited (the "Company”), which has its registered office in Newry, Co. Down, Northern Ireland, presented a petition to the Irish High Court for the appointment of an examiner. Where the registered office of the Company is outside Ireland it does not fall within the definition of a 'company' under the Companies Act, 2014 being one which is formed and registered within the State.

The Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA) has recently issued an information note, which provides guidance to directors in respect of early warning tools, director's duties and restructuring processes for companies in financial difficulty.

On Friday, 29 July the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment signed into law the European Union (Preventative Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the "Regulations").

This case was an emergency interlocutory application by Mr Hennessy to prevent a receiver – Ken Tyrrell – and Everyday Finance DAC (the "Defendants") from taking possession, marketing and/or selling charged lands in County Laois (the "charged lands" or the "lands").

Although there is no technical requirement for a judgment to apply to make a debtor a bankrupt (as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Harrahill v Cuddy[1]), the Court has a very wide discretion to refuse to issue a bankruptcy summons. Therefore, an applicant will typically rely on a judgment to ground a bankruptcy petition.

Background

The High Court recently extended the bankruptcy period of an Irish businessman to a total of 13 years.

The usual bankruptcy term is one year, however this can be extended in cases of non-cooperation or non-disclosure of assets with the maximum term being 15 years.

On Monday 8 November, the High Court imposed one of the longest ever disqualification periods for a company director. The Court held that this was "one of the most extreme cases of using a company for [oil] laundering", and granted an application on behalf of the liquidator of Gaboto Limited for the disqualification of the two directors for a period of fifteen years.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’

Key Takeaways