On Thursday, 4 June 2020, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (“ODCE”) published a welcome reminder on points to be taken into account when considering liquidators’ reports and the likelihood of restriction proceedings as a consequence of dishonest or irresponsible conduct.
While the ODCE considers each company’s case on its own merits taking into account:
(i) the liquidator’s report on the relevant insolvent entity; and
(ii) any other relevant information obtained independently of the liquidator, broadly speaking:
In our earlier article, we discussed the importance of timing in corporate recovery efforts and the difficulties facing companies with the examinership process and its legislative requirements.
With the Brexit deadline fast approaching, the ByrneWallace Brexit team address various issues which will impact upon businesses either trading with or through the UK, or with suppliers in the UK, and/or with UK staff based in Ireland or staff in the UK.
In this issue of our Spotlight on Brexit Series, we address Corporate Governance.
Critical issues for businesses to consider in the event of a no-deal Brexit or where transitional arrangements fail to ensure continuity in the treatment of UK companies as EEA undertakings include:
In McFeely v Official Assignee in Bankruptcy [2017] IECA 21, a judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Peart on 2nd February 2017, the Court of Appeal has reiterated the importance of maintaining the integrity of the bankruptcy process in Ireland, and in so doing has provided a useful overview of the law relating to the circumstances in which the Court will order an extension of the bankruptcy period under the Bankruptcy Act 1988 (as amended) (the “Act”).
Background
Introduction
A March 8 2016 decision of the influential Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has attracted attention from – and caused concern for – owners of pipelines and other midstream assets, as well as lenders to midstream and upstream lenders across the United States.
Most due diligence processes in a business acquisition context require a review of material contracts and, in particular, a review of any restrictions on assignment of those contracts.
When a business enters into a long term commercial contract with a customer, the identity of that particular counterparty may influence the terms of the contract. A party deemed more favourable may obtain a better price or better terms. Unless restricted by enforceable anti-assignment provisions, these favourable contracts can be very valuable in a traditional M&A context.
Of general interest is the appeal in the case of Horton v Henry, on which we reported in our January 2015 update. In Horton, the High Court declined to follow a previous ruling, and decided that a bankrupt could not be compelled to access his pension savings to pay off creditors.
Introduction
In this Banking Reform updater we examine the single resolution mechanism (SRM), which together with the single supervisory mechanism (SSM) (Banking Reform updater 10) forms the key pillars of the EU Banking Union.
What is the SRM?