Our emergence from social and economic lockdown has led to much discussion around “the new normal” for our personal and business lives. In that context, the Courts Service Annual Report for 2019 (“the 2019 Report”) published in July 2020 is an opportunity to look back upon the pre-COVID-19 operation of civil and criminal litigation in the Irish courts, particularly developments on the debt recovery site.

Late in the evening on 30 July, the last day before its summer break, the Irish parliament (Oireachtas) passed the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Bill 2020. This is likely to be signed into law and commenced within two weeks.

Three of its provisions are particularly relevant to insolvency processes during the COVID-19 crisis.

Creditors’ meetings

The Irish Government has published the General Scheme of a Bill and related secondary legislation to address practical issues that have arisen for companies and cooperative societies as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. We examine the scope of the measures and next steps for entities that can avail of its provisions.

Duration of proposed temporary measures

A new Act, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, restricts many suppliers’ rights to exit commercial agreements due to restructuring or insolvency-related causes, even where those rights are expressly set out in the contract.

Since the release of the film Titanic in 1997, debate has persisted whether Rose could have shifted over slightly to let Jack onto the driftwood after they found themselves thrown from the sinking ship into the North Atlantic. Was there space? Would they both have frozen? Who knows.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 received Royal Assent on 26 June 2020. Regulations have been introduced which give the Pension Protection Fund (the PPF) certain rights.

As shopping centre owner Intu warns it could be forced to shut many of its sites if it can’t resolve its financial issues by tomorrow, 26/06/2020, our real estate and corporate restructuring and advisory experts take another look at what could happen next.

On top of the multiple challenges hitting retail and leisure landlords and occupiers arising from COVID-19, the news that Intu has had to write down the value of its shopping centre portfolio by nearly £2 billion came as further bad news.

For many companies facing financial stress, restructuring liabilities is the only way for their business to survive. Consensual restructuring, or voluntary workout, requires agreement from creditors to reorganise the company’s liabilities, and is typically implemented by agreement between the company and its creditors. Court-based restructuring processes, on the other hand, involve at least some degree of legal coercion of creditors to vary or release liabilities.

Notwithstanding the phased return to some level of normality, some businesses will continue to be significantly affected, particularly those in the leisure, travel/tourism, retail and hospitality sectors. These sectors will face longer term challenges due to social distancing requirements, consumer unease and the likely absence of international travel for many months, or perhaps even longer. However, these are not the only sectors that will suffer.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 (17 June 2020) has been eagerly anticipated.

The appeal raised important questions about the compatibility of adjudication with the operation of insolvency set-off. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deciding that a liquidator was entitled to refer an insolvent company’s claims to adjudication where there were cross-claims between the parties.

The facts

The High Court recently refused to grant an order sought by a Revenue-appointed liquidator, requiring Google Ireland to provide him with access to a private Gmail account. The Gmail account in question was believed to have been operated by the liquidated company. For their part, Google strongly resisted the liquidator’s application, citing concerns over protecting the privacy of individuals. It argued that the liquidator was seeking access to the entirety of the Gmail account which could contain diary entries and photographs as well as emails.