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?

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

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.

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

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.

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices

Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.

Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.