“To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan, and not quite enough time.” – Leonard Bernstein

To paraphrase, great things happen when there is a plan and a deadline.

Examinership is one of Ireland’s key rescue processes for insolvent companies. It has been used successfully in very many cases since its introduction almost 20 years ago.

Crucially, it encompasses a deadline with no flexibility.

100 days

When a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due, a director’s duties shift from the management of the company for the benefit of the shareholders, to ensuring the company’s creditors are not disadvantaged by the company continuing to trade.

The directors should seek and comply with professional advice from their auditors and solicitors regarding any decision to continue trading for an interim period.

Less than an hour after an oxygen tank exploded on Apollo 13, mission control told the crew to isolate a small tank, containing 3.9 pounds of oxygen.^[1] Days later, that tank provided the oxygen to keep the crew alive while landing back on Earth.

If they had left that tank for even another hour the oxygen in it would have been almost gone.

The recent publication of the Courts Service Annual Report 2018 highlighted on-going economic and societal changes by way of hard data. In his Foreword to the Report, Chief Justice Frank Clarke references our digital age, noting that “people are used to round-the-clock online access to services”. He adds that the courts “must deal with the twin challenge of facilitating such access while at the same time ensuring that the court process is secure and that cases are allocated the time and consideration they require”.

The Supreme Court has just delivered a judgment confirming the entitlement of a judgment debtor to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution.

The comprehensive judgment is a useful history lesson in the development and expansion of the right to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution which derives from the old Judicator (Ireland) Act, 1877.

Background

Judgment was obtained by a bank in February 2011 against two borrowers in the amount of €1,064,747.

The default setting for the hearing of many contested debt recovery and security enforcement cases is by way of affidavit evidence, particularly in the High Court[1]. The creditor swears an affidavit setting out the reasons why it maintains the court should rule in its favour. Certain documents can be presented as exhibits that back up its case such as a contract.

It is now well documented that many owners’ management companies are facing the prospect of litigating to recover the cost of remedial works for defective developments or passing the cost onto the owners themselves. Given the passage of time since the construction of the developments and the insolvency of many of the developers and contractors involved in those projects following the financial crisis, management companies often face an uphill battle to recover damages.

The appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution has generally been considered a “remedy of last resort”[1] and, for over a hundred years, courts have expressed differing views as to when they could appoint such a receiver.

Bankruptcy law has always sought to strike a balance between the rights of creditors and debtors. In Ireland, bankruptcy and personal insolvency law has incurred seismic change over the past decade. Many of the legislative changes have been implemented from a policy basis of assisting the debtor. We look at recent developments, from the point of view of the petitioning creditor in any bankruptcy.

Automatic discharge from bankruptcy

In a recent application for directions from the High Court, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (the “ODCE”) brought a motion to compel a liquidator contest an appeal by directors of a restriction order made against them in the High Court.

Section 683 of the Companies Act 2014 (“CA14”) requires the liquidator of an insolvent company to apply for an Order restricting the directors. It does not require liquidator to contest an appeal by directors. The ODCE ultimately withdrew the application and paid costs, but the application raises concerns for all liquidators.