Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, concerns have been raised by directors and bodies representing directors regarding potential liabilities directors may face by allowing businesses to continue to trade where there is a risk of insolvency.

In particular many directors are becoming increasingly concerned of the risks of personal liability being imposed on them if they allow their insolvent business to continue to trade in the anticipation that it will trade itself out of difficulty when the current COVID-19 crisis is behind us.

The sometimes controversial Examinership process, established in 1990, remains a very important tool for Irish companies with viable businesses that find themselves in financial difficulties.

It was established with the intention of preserving employment and benefiting the economy by facilitating corporate recovery. Examinership enables companies that successfully come through the process to do so with new investment and, hopefully, a brighter future that might not have otherwise been possible if the company had been forced into receivership or liquidation.

SJK Wholesale Limited (In Liquidation) v Companies Act 2014 [2020] IEHC 196

Introduction

In a recent decision, the Irish High Court refused to grant a liquidator access to a Google email account.

The court ruled that Irish insolvency law did not permit a court to order Google Ireland to grant the liquidator access to the email account in circumstances where the email account was created in the name of an individual rather than the company itself.

As the novel coronavirus COVID-19 continues to disrupt economic activity in Ireland businesses are reviewing their corporate structures and funding arrangements to deal with the crisis. In this article, we outline the types of corporate restructuring options that are available under Irish law each of which will be discussed by us in greater detail in a series of subsequent articles.

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?

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

On July 19, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered a decision upholding the results of a foreclosure sale against a debtor’s allegation that the sale was a preference because the bankruptcy estate could have sold the property for a higher price. Veltre v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Veltre), Case No. 17-2889 (3d Cir. July 19, 2018).