Background
In a recent High Court decision, it was ruled that the liquidator not only failed in his application before the court, but in bringing forward an application that was 'doomed to fail', the liquidator was acting negligently and breached his duty of care to the company as liquidator. As a result, the liquidator was held personally liable for the costs of the application.
In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2020, the High Court, in refusing to appoint an examiner to New Look Retailers Ireland Limited (New Look Ireland) ruled that it was "entirely premature to consider the appointment of an examiner". New Look Ireland trades under the brand name "New Look" and operates across 27 stores in Ireland.
The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has recently issued welcome guidance on how the impact of COVID-19 will be considered by the ODCE when evaluating potential restriction cases in respect of directors of insolvent companies – see here.
The Revenue Commissioners have issued some recent welcome clarifications about certain provisions of the Government's temporary wage subsidy scheme.
Application for the Subsidy Scheme – An Admission of Insolvency?
The main provisions of the subsidy scheme are set out in Section 28 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.
That section also contains the criteria for an employer's eligibility to avail of the subsidy scheme. One such criterion is that:
In the case of Wilson v McNamara [2020] EWHC 98 (Ch) the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) considered whether the EU principle of freedom of establishment requires that a pension held in another EU member state (Ireland) should be excluded from a bankruptcy estate under UK law in the same manner as a UK pension would be in a UK bankruptcy. Mr Justice Nugee decided in order to decide the case the Court needed to refer a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on a question of EU law.
Examinership A number of significant decisions were made by the High Court and Court of Appeal relating to different aspects of the examinership process in 2017. |
“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.
A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).
While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]