The Court refused to declare an appointment of administrators invalid under section 447C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) on the basis of a previous purportedly invalid removal of a director and alleged insufficient grounds to establish that the company was, or was likely to become insolvent.  This case illustrates the Court’s willingness to overlook technical anomalies in exercising its discretion under section 447C where the end result for the company would be the same, and a broad approach in assessing whether there are reasonable grounds to form a view that a company

A former director of Custom House Capital Limited (CHC) was recently found by the High Court to have fraudulently misrepresented to an investor that her €145,000 investment in the company was “safe” a year before CHC's collapse.

In March 2010 Ms Tressan Scott entered into a Subordinated Loan Agreement with CHC pursuant to which she loaned the sum of €145,000 to CHC. At the time the agreement was signed, Ms Scott was recovering from treatment for Lymphoma.

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.  

This case serves as an important reminder that board appointments should not be taken lightly - even as a “personal favour”.  Directors should ensure that they are sufficiently abreast of the affairs of their companies and actively involved in their management.  An argument that a director was “not really involved” in management is unlikely to find favour when the company finds itself in strife.

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.

This decision is a testament to the flexibility of schemes of arrangement in Australia as a means of effecting settlements with a company’s creditors as well as third parties such as the company’s insurers. The Federal Court also demonstrated its propensity to take a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a “compromise or arrangement” to enliven its jurisdiction to convene a meeting of creditors for the purpose of considering a proposed scheme of arrangement.

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.