Summary

The High Court recently handed down the judgment in Ralls Builders Ltd (In Liquidation), Re [2016] EWHC 1812 (Ch). It was held that liquidators and administrators are not able to recover their own costs and expenses of investigating a wrongful trading claim from the directors of a company, even following a finding of wrongful trading under section 214 Insolvency Act 1986.

Background

On 27 July 2016, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the Romanian insurance undertaking Carpatica Asig SA, considering several audit and assessment reports. The outcome of the FSA analysis was the commencement of the bankruptcy procedures against Carpatica Asig SA.

Proposed amendments to the Recovery and Restructuring of Credit Institutions and Investment Intermediaries Act, effective as of 14 August 2015 (“Recovery and Restructurings Act”) provide that stress tests should be carried out for insurers and reinsurers. If approved by the Parliament, the changes will necessitate the organising and performing of stress tests for insurers and reinsurers within a tight timeframe, by the end of 2016.

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has published its Annual Report for 2015.

Key Developments from the Report: 

Draft Law No. 3555 “On Financial Restructuring” (the “Restructuring Law”) aimed at creating effective mechanisms for voluntary financial restructuring of Ukrainian companies’ debts (the “Voluntary Restructuring”). The Restructuring Law is adopted as a temporary measure and will be in effect for three years. The Government expects that the Restructuring Law will result in reducing the amount of bad loans and restoring bank lending.

The main novelties of the Restructuring Law are as follows:

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

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