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
Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp.1 that permitted the debtor, Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (“Sabine”) to reject certain gathering and condensation agreements as executory contracts under 11 U.S.C. § 365. Because the midstream service sector finances the construction of pipelines, the costs of which are recovered over the life of gathering agreements, the Court’s decision has the potential to lead to considerable upheaval in the energy sector.
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
In March 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a landlord may be liable to a debtor’s bankruptcy estate for the value of a lease the debtor terminated early, holding the termination may be an “avoidable transfer” under the Bankruptcy Code.1 The opinion in Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. T.D. Invs. I, LLP (In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP)2 reversed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, and in doing so perhaps expanded the definition of a “transfer” under the Bankruptcy Code.
Background
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.
Facts
In Farrell & Kelly v Petrosyan & Ors (linked to McLoughlin & anor v ACC Loan Management Ltd), High Court, O'Connor J, 2 March 2016 the High Court considered an application for possession on behalf of receivers appointed by ACC Loan Management Limited (ACC). One of the issues before the court was whether the receivers had authority to act in the proceedings in view of their deeds of appointment by ACC.
In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the "Act").1 The Act authorized states to create health savings accounts ("HSAs") with taxpreferred treatment to encourage individuals with high-deductible health insurance plans to save for their healthcare expenses.2 Recent data suggests that the popularity of HSA accounts is growing, with one study estimating that the number of HSA accounts rose to 13.8 million in 2014, which is a twenty-nine percent (29%) increase from 2013.