The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. has appropriately drawn significant attention.

If a transaction by a company amounts to an "unlawful distribution", and the company subsequently goes into liquidation, will an action for recovery of the benefits of that distribution, brought against the directors who authorised the transaction, be statute-barred if it is commenced by the liquidator of the company more than 6 years after the distribution was made?

DOMESTIC

Research on the impact of repossession risk on mortgage default

Terry O’Malley published an economic letter considering whether reducing the risk of repossession resulted in more Irish borrowers defaulting on their mortgages. The letter considers the impact of the ''Dunne judgment'' in 2011 which temporarily removed a bank's ability to lawfully repossess a home. One of the key findings was that borrowers defaulted on mortgages at a higher rate than if the repossession regime at the time was legally upheld.

Introduction

There are two principal mechanisms for the dissolution of a solvent Irish company:

• Voluntary Strike-Off (VSO); and
• Members' Voluntary Liquidation (MVL).

To the extent there are other Irish or EU entities in the group, it may also be possible to dissolve the company by way of merger with another group entity.

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a patent dispute case, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Although the case has nothing to do with bankruptcy law, its outcome could have a substantial impact on bankruptcy practice and litigation.

In Reilly & Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 [2017] IEHC 558, Baker J, 5 October, 2017, the High Court held that applications to Court under Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 (the Acts), for approval of a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) despite its rejection by creditors, must be made by a Personal Insolvency Practitioner (PIP) and not by the Debtor themselves.

The Supreme Court two years ago ruled in Baker Botts v. Asarco that bankruptcy professionals entitled to compensation from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate had no statutory right to be compensated for time spent defending against objections to their fee applications.

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in PEM Entities LLC v. Levin, in which it will decide whether federal or a state law should apply when a debt claim held by a debtor’s insider is sought to be recharacterized in bankruptcy as a capital contribution and treated as equity. The case raises important questions about the extent to which the commencement of a proceeding under the U.S.

Baker J in the High Court has given three recent judgments in matters concerning Section 115A(9) of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 – 2015 (the Acts). This Section gives a Court power to review and approve a Personal Insolvency Application (PIA) rejected at a meeting of creditors.

Re JD (a debtor) [2017] IEHC 119, High Court, 21 February 2017

In a High Court decision of 22 May 2017 Baker J rejected a proposal by a secured lender to write down a portion of a debtor couple's mortgage debt and warehouse half of the debt as future repayment of the warehoused part of the loan was not predicated on an ability to repay. Thus, the proposal was capable of creating circumstances amounting to insolvency at the end of the mortgage term in approximately 23 years.

Facts