The High Court (Court) recently dismissed a petition seeking the winding up of a biofuel company (Company).

The ex tempore judgment is of note because it considers the standing of the Petitioner to bring the application and the consequences of a relevant witness not being cross-examined by the Petitioner on his affidavit evidence regarding the solvency of the Company.

Background

Election of Joe Graham to Partner

Joe Graham was elected partner in the New York office. This year, Joe played a leading role in the chapter 11 cases of Avaya, Benefytt and Diamond Sports. He regularly advises on out-of-court restructurings, bankruptcy litigation and distressed investments. Joe earned his J.D., magna cum laude, and his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame.

Kelley Cornish Inducted into “M&A Advisor Hall of Fame”

A previously unsettled aspect regarding the High Court’s (Court) jurisdiction to appoint an examiner to a company which is not formed or registered under the Companies Act 2014 (2014 Act), has been considered in the recent case of In the matter of MAC Interiors Ltd [2023] IEHC 395.

Earlier this year, a group of bondholders advised by William Fry and owed over US$175m by GTLK Europe DAC (GTLK Europe) and GTLK Europe Capital DAC (GTLK Capital) (collectively the Companies) petitioned for the winding up of the Companies on a number of grounds, including that they had failed to discharge scheduled interest payments and the accelerated debt constituted by the bonds following the interest payment defaults.

The High Court (Court) had to determine whether proceeds from two investments in the estate in the bankruptcy of Bernard McNamara (McNamara) were payable to NALM under its security package, or whether they should be retained in the estate in the bankruptcy of McNamara for the benefit of creditors generally (substantive question).

The High Court (Court) has found that it was not appropriate to make a winding up order in respect of a company under section 760(2) of the Companies Act 2014 (Act), where no party was nominated or consented to act as liquidator.

On April 19, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC that Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not jurisdictional. The decision requires parties timely to invoke that provision, or else risk forfeiting its protections. The decision also continues the Supreme Court’s trend of interpreting statutes to be non-jurisdictional (and thus waivable or forfeitable) in the absence of a clear congressional statement to the contrary.

Background

A recent Court of Appeal decision held that receivers are statutorily obliged to discharge preferential costs from assets available after deducting costs and expenses of a receiverirst line

The issue

On December 5, 2022, in In re Global Cord Blood Corp., 2022 WL 17478530 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2022) (“Global Cord”), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) denied recognition of a proceeding pending in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Cayman Proceeding” and the court, the “Cayman Court”) because it was more like a corporate governance and fraud remediation effort than a collective proceeding for the purpose of dealing with reorganization or liquidation, as Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code requires.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court finding, which granted a declaration under section 819 of the Companies Act 2014 (CA 2014), restricting the appellant director (Appellant) from acting as a director or secretary of a company for a period of five years, unless the company meets the requirements set out in subsection (3) of section 819.