A Members Voluntary Liquidation ("MVL") is a process undertaken by a solvent company to wind up its affairs in an orderly manner when the company has concluded its activities and the shareholders wish to distribute the remaining assets amongst themselves.

To avail of a MVL, the company must be solvent i.e. the directors must be able to execute a statutory declaration that they are of the opinion that the company will be able to pay its debts in full within 12 months of the commencement of the winding up.

The steps involved

After much anticipation, the UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 - and has authoritatively set the baseline for how directors’ duties evolve as regards shareholders and creditors’ interests when a company is in the zone of insolvency.

Background

As another Irish Court year will soon commence, now is an opportune time to look back at some of the more interesting insolvency and restructuring judgments to have been delivered in the Superior Courts during the last 12 months.

The judgments explored below will prove of relevance and importance to practitioners and clients navigating distressed corporates and assets over the coming weeks and years. Please do get in touch with your Walkers Ireland Insolvency and Dispute Resolution contact or any of the contacts listed below with any comments or queries.

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.

“[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]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.