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.

The recent sanction judgment gives important guidance on the way in which the court's discretion should be exercised when sanctioning a restructuring plan and considers whether it is necessary for opposing parties to provide valuation evidence of their own .

Key takeaways from the judgment

No worse off test: expert evidence

In its recent judgement in Re Avanti Communications Ltd [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch) ('Avanti') the High Court decided that in some circumstances a charge can take effect as a fixed charge despite the chargor having some flexibility to dispose of assets without the consent of the charge holder.

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

As of 17 April 2023 new creditors winding up petitions can be presented in accordance with the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules (NI) 2023. This means that the restrictions faced by creditors in filing winding up petitions will be lifted, and ultimately more companies will be open to pursual.

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the case of Rakusen v Jepsen on 1 March 2023, deciding that rent repayment orders cannot be made against superior landlords.

The case considered whether rent repayment orders (RROs) under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, could be made against immediate landlords only, or whether superior landlords are also liable. 

This is the third article in our series about sponsor licences. This article focuses on the effect of insolvency on a sponsor licence.

Businesses are facing challenging times in the current economic downturn and insolvency is a real possibility for many, with 5,595 company insolvencies in the third quarter of 2022[1] alone.

If a business is on the brink of insolvency this will potentially have an impact on any sponsorship licences held within the company group. But what are the implications of this and what does it mean for sponsored employees?