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.

On March 26, 2020, leave to appeal the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Alberta CA”) in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc.¹ (“Canada North Group”) was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”).² No reasons were given.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread closures and suspension of operations, including within the justice system in Ontario. Ontario courts have issued a number of notices detailing the changes to regular court operations. In an effort to simplify the complicated situation already facing insolvency practitioners and their clients, we have summarized the current status of court operations germane to bankruptcy and insolvency matters.

Superior Court of Justice

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:

On March 6, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Bodanis (“Bodanis”),¹ holding that two debtors, each having an estate exceeding $10,000 in value, had appeals of their bankruptcy orders as of right under section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act²(the “BIA”) and thus did not need to seek leave to appeal.

Section 193 reads 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.

On December 30, 2019, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (the “NLSC”) released its decision in Re Norcon Marine Services Ltd.¹ (“Norcon Marine”), dismissing both an application by a debtor for continuance of its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (“BIA”) proposal proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act³ (“CCAA”) and a competing application by a secured creditor for the appointment of a receiver.

On October 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “BCSC” or the “Court”) released its decision in 8640025 Canada Inc. (Re)¹ (“8640025 Canada”), denying an application to replace the monitor (the “Monitor”) in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act² (the "CCAA") proceeding because the applicant was not a creditor and therefore had no standing to bring such an application.