An order providing for the commencement of certain provisions of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 brings the following three new debt settlement arrangements into operation with effect from 31 July 2013:

The High Court has made an order disqualifying the two directors of Mossway Limited (In Liquidation) for a period of 12 months.

Background

The principal business of the company had been the provision of haulage services with a warehousing and distribution facility. On 3 June 2011, the Revenue Commissioners presented a petition to wind up the company on the basis that it was unable to pay its debts as they fell due. The Court made the order sought and appointed an Official Liquidator.

The Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 was signed into law by the President on 24 July 2013.  While certain sections of the Act commenced immediately on its signing into law, other provisions have yet to be commenced by ministerial order.

A summary of the key changes brought about by the Act are set out below.

Increase in the Monetary Jurisdiction of District and Circuit Courts

The Act increases the monetary jurisdiction of:

The High Court has approved a Scheme of Arrangement in respect of Monsoon Accessorize Ireland Limited which entered into the examinership process in March 2013 and was under the Court’s protection for the maximum period of 100 days. This period afforded the company time to attract investment and allow for its restructuring so that it could continue to survive as a going concern after the protection of the Court was lifted.

As a result of the restructuring, a number of stores will close, however, the Scheme of Arrangement should result in approximately 200 jobs being saved.

The EU Court of Justice has held that the Irish State is obliged to protect the pension benefits of former employees of Waterford Crystal who were left with only 18-28% of their pension benefits when the company became insolvent.  

Recent attempts by Bank of Scotland plc. to enforce its security over the company operating Foley’s Bar and O’Reilly’s Bar in Dublin city centre have been frustrated following various challenges in the High Court culminating in the appointment of an examiner.

Bank of Scotland plc. appointed a receiver to The Belohn Limited, the company operating the two bars, in October 2012. The Belohn Limited and its parent company, Merrow Limited, are reported to owe the bank in the region of €4 million and €1 million respectively.

The Central Bank has announced a pilot scheme for the restructuring of secured and unsecured distressed consumer debt across multiple lenders. The scheme aims to prevent borrowers entering the insolvency process by agreeing debt solutions with various lenders.

The scheme will not apply to business debt, debt involving buy-to-let properties or debts where the borrower is deemed to be “non-co-operating” under the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears.

Recent attempts by Bank of Scotland plc to enforce its security over the company operating Foley’s Bar and O’Reilly’s Bar in Dublin city centre have been frustrated following various challenges in the High Court, culminating in the appointment of an examiner.

The Belohn Limited is the company which operates Foley’s Bar and the adjoining O’Reilly’s Bar. Its parent company is Merrow Limited. The two companies are reported to owe the bank in the region of €4 million and €1 million respectively.

The High Court has recently held that a former employee of a construction company, which was in liquidation, had no reasonable cause of action against the company’s insurer. This was despite the fact that he had obtained judgment for negligence against the employer and the insurance policy covered the employer for such a claim in negligence.

In In re Kerr Aluminium Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) [2012] IEHC 386, the High Court dismissed an application by a liquidator that certain payments made by the company in favour of Bank of Ireland be deemed a fraudulent preference within the meaning of section 286 of the Companies Act 1963. The decision is a further reminder of the challenges liquidators face in establishing a dominant intention to prefer one creditor over another in fraudulent preference applications.