Kerr & Ors v Conduit Enterprises Ltd

In 1997 the two directors of the company and others purchased a building and leased it to the company. Ownership of the company changed hands a number of times and, in 2008, the then new owners purported to void the lease on the basis that it had never been approved by shareholder resolution. The landlords issued proceedings seeking a declaration that the lease was valid.

The court held that:

In a series of cases the High Court has:

In January 2010 an interim examiner was appointed to Missford Limited, which operated the Residence Club, a private members club in St. Stephen’s Green.

In a written judgment on the costs and expenses of the interim examiner, the court held that the interim examiner “simply did more with the best of motives than his warrant permitted”. The court proceeded to refuse the interim examiner’s application for remuneration in respect of any work carried out in excess of his statutory powers.

In the matter of Cognotec Ltd (in receivership)

Section 60(14) provides that a transaction in breach of section 60 is voidable against any person who had notice of the facts which constitute the breach.

The company sought to void the debenture which secured the loan on the basis that section 60 had not been complied with and the receiver appointed on foot of the debenture brought a motion for directions.

The court held that:

In the Matter of Bell Lines Limited (In Liquidation)  

That decision has effectively been relied on since 2006 for the proposition that, except for the Social Insurance Fund, a party advancing monies for the payment of remuneration falling due before the commencement of an insolvency process but actually paid after such commencement is not entitled to subrogate to the employees’ preferential claims.

The Appeal

The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) voted on December 18 to approve an interim final rule clarifying how the agency will treat certain creditor claims under the new orderly liquidation authority established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Ireland has a temporary insolvency process known as “court protection” and commonly called examinership. This provides a breathing space within which a court will determine whether parts of the business can survive after restructuring. This may entail existing leases being disclaimed. The recent case of Bestseller Retail Ireland Limited gives an interesting example of how the court will exercise its discretion in considering an application to disclaim a lease.

Background

Kitchin Associates LLC is a Pennsylvania limited liability company that is no longer in business. Richard Kitchin and his son were the members of Kitchin LLC and each held a 50% ownership interest in the entity. In a bankruptcy court proceeding, the Joan I. Glisson Trust asserted a claim against Mr. Kitchin in the amount of $257,047.63, arising from an unsatisfied mortgage loan to Kitchin LLC, the proceeds of which were used to purchase a property in Pennsylvania. Mr.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of a complaint brought by Rosenman Family, LLC, an investor with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), against the trustee of BLMIS’s estate. The complaint alleged that Rosenman was entitled to a return of $10 million it wired to BLMIS, because, Rosenman argued, the funds were stolen or embezzled by BLMIS and thus never became BLMIS’s property and/or part of BLMIS’s bankruptcy estate.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages by investors in Access Cardiosystems, Inc. against one of the defendants, Randall Fincke. The investors had asserted claims against Mr.

Given the overarching Madoff Ponzi scheme as well as other mini-Madoff schemes that surfaced in its wake, many have been following issues arising from the ability of a trustee to claw back transfers (either as preferential or as fraudulent transfers) from investors who redeemed their interests in a private investment fund or managed account that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The law generally provides that an investor’s principal investment is protected so long as it is received in good faith and for value.