On 22 January 2014 the High Court ordered the winding up of a property company, Fuerta Limited, on the unusual ground that it was just and equitable to do so. Resort to this ground for winding up is usually reserved for the most intractable of situations and it is thought to be the first time the Court has done so on foot of a creditor petition.
American and British directors of corporations should be mindful of the different standards of conduct, obligations, and potential personal liability when holding directorships in Turkish companies, particularly if such companies’ financial situation is deteriorating.
On 24 December 2013 the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 was signed into law by the President. The purpose of the legislation is to expedite a number of amendments to existing legislation pending the enactment of the Companies Bill.
Circuit Court Examinership
124 members of the Element Six pension scheme are suing the trustees of the scheme in the Commercial Court for alleged breach of duty arising out of the decision to close the scheme with a significant deficit. The members claim that the trustees breached their duty to the members by failing to demand that the employer fully fund the deficit in the scheme before wind up. A number of general issues relating to the obligations of trustees were raised during the 3-week hearing of the case.
Background
Borrowers are increasingly seeking to challenge or frustrate the validity of an appointment of a receiver on technical grounds. While each case will be determined on its own merits and facts, a recent decision of the High Court is illustrative of the Court’s attitude towards some such arguments.
When the final version of the Omnibus II Directive comes into force, it will amend the Solvency II Directive so that it includes a sunrise clause, a phasing-in clause, and a run-off and restructuring exemption, as well as significant reporting and other transitional measures. It will also allow or require the European Commission and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) to adopt “regulatory technical standards”,“implementing technical standards” and “comply or explain Guidelines”.
The English Court has devised a new route to impose liability on a company's UBO who strips assets from the company leaving creditors to claim in its insolvency. UBOs feeling comfortable about the security of their corporate veil after the Supreme Court’s decision in Prest[1], will need to look carefully at this recent decision, which may be applied in other jurisdictions with corporate laws based on English law, such as BVI and Cyprus.
The Government, has announced that it is examining potential changes to the law to clarify the position of residential tenants where a receiver is appointed to rented accommodation. Concern has been expressed that there is a lack of clarity as to whether a receiver appointed to such a property assumes any of the responsibilities of the landlord or whether he should be solely concerned with recovering value from the asset, as would be conventional.
In In re Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd [2013] IEHC 219, the High Court held that it has jurisdiction to wind-up a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, but with its principal place of business in Ireland.
In its decision in In re Davis Joinery Ltd [2013] IEHC 353, the High Court identified the difficulties that employees of corporate employers may face when their employer ceases trading without taking any steps to formally wind-up the company.