The joint liquidators of a company, which had been compulsorily wound up in England and Wales, sought orders under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”) for production of documents and an account of dealings with the company, in respect of companies in Italy. The question for the Court was whether s236 IA86 had extraterritorial effect. The problem for the court was that there was competing first instance decisions both for and against.

A bankruptcy petition was dismissed on the application of the debtor, who claimed that a guarantee document was not a valid deed, the transaction which was purported to be guaranteed was a sham and that the debtor’s signature had been forged. Whilst the court accepted that there was a substantial dispute as regards the transaction (payment of fees of US$500 billion!) and that the form of guarantee was invalid, as no evidence had been called to show that the debtor’s signature had been forged, the bankruptcy petition hearing was not the right forum to decide the matter.

The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.

A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.

The court held in this case that a costs order in favour of the debtor, in respect of a discontinued bankruptcy petition for the same debt, due to the petitioner, could be set off against the sums due in respect of a second bankruptcy petition brought against the debtor by the same petitioner. The debtor had argued that the petition should be stayed until the previous costs order had been paid.

The case concerned an insolvency practice which had been placed into compulsory liquidation. The Applicants had been appointed liquidators. However, between the presentation of the petition and the winding up order, the assets of the insolvency practice were transferred to another practice, resulting in a claim under section 127 IA86 to declare the transfer void. In addition, the liquidators sought to have transferred to themselves the insolvency cases of the two practitioners of the former practice. The application was by way of the block transfer procedure.

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

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 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.