Some businesses may soon (and indeed already) be faced with sudden cash flow and liquidity issues as a result of the sudden economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some of these businesses may be well advised to first seek to renegotiate arrangements with creditors whilst others may require formal court protection from creditors to assist them while arrangements with creditors are being put in place.

The three main legal avenues which are available to businesses seeking to restructure their debt under Irish law are as follows:

Covid-19 is top of the agenda for businesses globally — and for good reason.

It has now been classified as a worldwide pandemic and numbers of those affected are on the rise each day. It has already had some devastating effects on the markets and now with some countries being on complete lockdown, issues such as survival of businesses and trading while potentially becoming insolvent need to be seriously considered by companies and their directors.

We are delighted to publish the latest edition of our newsletter, Compliance Agenda. It contains a round-up of all the latest legal updates of interest to Company Secretaries, Company Directors and Compliance Officers.

Involuntarily struck off, can I bring my company back to life?

The Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act 2015 reduced the normal duration of bankruptcy from three years to one year. Up until December 2013 the standard period had been twelve years - so the reduction was a fundamental change and it was seen as a very "pro-debtor" reform of law, which was also aimed at reducing "bankruptcy tourism".

Extending the Period of Bankruptcy

The Companies Registration Office (CRO) will no longer change the designated status of a company on the register of companies from “Normal” to “Receivership” if that company has a receiver appointed over its assets.

This means that companies in receivership will no longer have the designation “Receivership” on their CRO record.

This change, which became effective on 22 March 2017, is a consequence of the Court of Appeal decision in Independent Trustee Company Limited v Registrar of Companies [2016] IECA 274.

As well as representing new possibilities in the context of acquisitions, the new merger regime under the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) offers a number of benefits which make it attractive to corporates seeking to restructure.

The Act provides for the following three forms of statutory merger between private companies:

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.