The Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy trustee to compel return of a payment made to a creditor within 90 days before a bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(4)(A). The justification for compelling the return of preference payments is to level the playing field among creditors by not rewarding those who, perhaps, pressed the debtor the hardest on the eve of bankruptcy.
This case1 concerned a challenge to a High Court judgment which was entered against Mr Hanley for failure to repay monies borrowed pursuant to a loan agreement. Mr Hanley asserted that he had never received a letter of demand for repayment of the loan monies borrowed. The Court noted that the notice of demand went, in error, to another Mr Hanley that had no connection to the Defendant.
In Leahy v Doyle & anor [2016] IEHC 177, the High Court issued orders of restriction in respect of directors of two companies (Gingersnap and Scappa), under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). While the companies were different, the liquidator and the directors were the same.
Background
In McAteer & anor v McBrien & ors [2016] IEHC 229, the High Court made an order restricting three directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). The first named respondent (A) was the husband of the second named respondent (B) and father of the third named respondent (C) and all were directors of the Company on the date of the liquidation.
Background
On May 16, 2016 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the meaning of “actual fraud” under the Bankruptcy Code. Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz represents a win for creditors by making it easier to show that a debtor committed fraud. A showing of a more general fraud, as opposed to a specific false representation by the debtor, will suffice to prevent certain debts from being discharged in bankruptcy.
Background
The High Court (Binchy J), has recently made restriction orders in respect of directors in two separate applications before it.
In Murphy -v- O'Flynn & anor [2016] IEHC 197 a liquidator sought an order from the Court restricting William and Deirdre O’Flynn from acting as directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990.
Applicable Law
Freeman V Bank of Scotland plc, Simon Davidson and Lloyd Daly & Associates Ltd [2016] IESC 14
This Supreme Court decision is as a result of an appeal from a judgment of McGovern J in the High Court which was delivered on 29th May 2014.
Background
In Delaney v AIB [2016] IECA 5, Court of Appeal, Peart J, 28 January 2016 the Court of Appeal held that a bank had no duty of care to advise customers on the wisdom of a commercial transaction.
Facts
In McCann -v- Halpin & anor [2016] IESC 11, the receiver applied to the High Court for directions pursuant to Section 316(1) of the Companies Act 1963, in relation to the exercise of his powers as receiver over the property and assets of Elektron and Crossplan (the Companies). The appeal before the Supreme Court dealt with one issue - whether the receiver was validly appointed.