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.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where a liquidator obtained judicial advice to commence proceedings against a director and related company concerning the unlawful receipt and use of trust money.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where a court ordered that a company’s winding up be stayed, with a view to being terminated, pending payment of the liquidator’s remuneration.

Key takeaways

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

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

This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).

Key Takeaways

While examinership is a successful and internationally recognised rescue process for Irish companies, there has been a concern for some time that is out of reach of smaller businesses due to the associated costs. As part of the government’s response to the economic challenges of the pandemic, the Department of Enterprise has published a rescue process for small and micro businesses.