There are plans to establish a new corporate rescue procedure for small companies. Currently termed the Summary Rescue Procedure, it was initially proposed by the Company Law Review Group in October 2020.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Department) is now seeking submissions from stakeholders to inform the development of this new restructuring procedure.
Why the need for a new corporate rescue procedure?
The streamlining of the Schemes of Arrangement (Schemes) process under the Companies Act 2014 (CA 2014) provides an option for corporate restructuring and recovery, which may not have been a feasible for some companies or corporate groups in the past.
As many companies continue to suffer economic hardship due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely that mergers and acquisitions of companies and assets in distress will feature as a significant proportion of overall M&A transactions in Ireland during the coming months.
The sometimes controversial Examinership process, established in 1990, remains a very important tool for Irish companies with viable businesses that find themselves in financial difficulties.
It was established with the intention of preserving employment and benefiting the economy by facilitating corporate recovery. Examinership enables companies that successfully come through the process to do so with new investment and, hopefully, a brighter future that might not have otherwise been possible if the company had been forced into receivership or liquidation.
As the novel coronavirus COVID-19 continues to disrupt economic activity in Ireland businesses are reviewing their corporate structures and funding arrangements to deal with the crisis. In this article, we outline the types of corporate restructuring options that are available under Irish law each of which will be discussed by us in greater detail in a series of subsequent articles.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.