The Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025 aims to provide greater protection to employees where their employer becomes insolvent. The Bill will allow greater access to a Social Insurance Fund to protect employee pay-related entitlements and claims for historic entitlements over the previous 40 years. The devil is in the detail, however, with very specific caps and limitations.

The number of company insolvencies in 2023 increased by over a third compared to 2022. The hospitality sector was particularly badly affected, with 53% more insolvencies than in 2022.

It appears that 2024 will be similarly challenging for companies in the hospitality sector. The Restaurant Association of Ireland (RAI) has set out the main challenges faced by the industry, including increased energy and labour costs, and the VAT rate reverting to 13.5% after having been reduced to 9% during the covid-19 pandemic.

In the matter of Bleecker Property Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] NSWSC 1071, appears to be the first published case that considers the question of whether an order can be made under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by way of default judgment against one defendant where there are multiple defendants in the proceedings.

Key takeaways

There are certain circumstances where liquidators can be held personally liable for costs orders made in proceedings taken by them.

Under the so called “Ballyrider Principles[1]”:

Corporate Enforcement Authority Issues Helpful Guidance Note

The Preventative Restructuring Directive

In July 2022, the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the Regulations) transposed the requirements of EU Directive 2019/1023 (the Preventative Restructuring Directive) into Irish law.

Certain of the consequential amendments to the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) relate to the duties and responsibilities that directors of companies have in circumstances of financial difficulty and/or insolvency.

This week’s TGIF considers Hundy (liquidator), in the matter of 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 1216, in which the Federal Court of Australia granted leave under rule 2.13(1) of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) (FCCR) for intervening parties to be h

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment commenced a public consultation process on 8 February 2021, in relation to proposed legislation which will allow for a new restructuring procedure for the rescue of small companies.