Executive summary
A recent decision of the High Court sanctioned restructuring schemes for two companies in the Solar 21 renewable energy investment group showing once again effective and efficient restructuring tools available in Ireland for companies in need. Below we discuss the main features of the Judgment and the criteria required to be met in order for the schemes to be legally binding and effective pursuant to Part 9 of the Companies Act 2014 (as amended) (the Act).
What is a Part 9 Scheme of Arrangement?
On Friday, 29 July the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment signed into law the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the Regulations).
Pursuant to the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (COVID-19) Act 2020 (the COVID Act), “exceptional provision” to the operation of certain parts of the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) was made for a specific period of time, which period could be extended by order of the Government (the Interim Period). Yesterday, the government announced that it was extending the Interim Period until 31 December 2022.
The Irish Government has published the details of a new 'out-of-court' rescue process for small companies, the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process or 'SCARP'. The process seeks to borrow some features from the well-established examinership rescue process, but with one fundamental difference, being the limited role of the Irish courts proposed for SCARP. The relative high cost of examinership for smaller companies has historically been found to be a barrier for entry.
Executive Summary
The Irish High Court currently has exclusive jurisdiction to make orders against the Registrar (as defined below) pursuant to the Convention and the Protocol (both as defined below).
The recent judgment of Mr Justice McDonald in Unicredit Global Leasing Export Gmbh v Business Aviation Limited and Aviareto Limited1 is a welcome reminder that the Irish Courts will not tolerate misleading registrations on the International Registry for International Interests in Mobile Equipment (the "Registry").
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
The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.
Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.
Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.
HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.